User talk:Pedrito/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome

Hi Pedro. I came here after I saw your work on adaptive quadrature. I added some links to articles which we already have.

Welcome on Wikipedia, and I hope you enjoy contributing to it. You might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics or Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science (numerical analysis falls under maths here, I guess, but you say you're in the computer science department). Feel free to ask me if you're unsure about anything that's going on here. I look forward to reading more from you!

Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian exodus

Hi Pedro. Ok. You are right. Alithien 15:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. No problem :-). I don't think this sentence is important. If I am quite sure Gelber wrote it; I am also quite sure the context to which it referts is not as "wide" as it sounds when we read the sentence in the article.

You are also right concerning readibility. But half the information is missing and different points of view are not properly introduced. Nevertheless it is too hard a stuff to try to improve this today as it was 1 year ago.

See you. Alithien 15:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

For information : [1]

Tschuss, Alithien 11:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's today (as you probably know) and so it seems especially appropriate to honour the events and the people who lost everything by faithfully portraying their story. Thanks for reverting those who seem as though they would revert us out of history if they could. Warm regards. Tiamut 16:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks to you again for checking that out (in advance) :). Tiamut 18:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting, as you pointed out, how Morris can use the word defensiveness or reprisals by limiting those comments to Haganah strategies, while ignoring that the Lehi and Irgun attacks were coterminous with the "Arab iniatives" that he mentions. I really appreciate the effort you went to to provide the full context of the quote there. I see that the discussion at Palestinian exodus seems to be favoring the bland, uninformative introduction over the one you offered for now. We could tighten it up, based on the comments, though I do like having mention of three phases there. It provides an informative overview to the read per WP:LEAD. Alternatively, we could just work on getting the article into line with what the sources actually say. It seems to need a lot of cleanup. Thanks again for your efforts. Tiamut 11:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian exodus (2)

Hello, What you try to do was tried before but is unfortunately useless.
These articles are poved and it will not change before a long time.
But good luck. If you read French, I could suggest you :

• fr:guerre israélo-arabe de 1948 and you could start by :

• fr:protagonistes de la guerre de Palestine de 1948
• fr:Guerre civile en Palestine de 1947-1948

Alithien 08:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hallo

Ich habe ein paar Monaten bei ETHZ (HochSpannung Gruppe) gearbeitet. Ich probeerte Deutsch zu sprechen aber ich habe alles vergessen :-(

Mais toi ton français est *excellent* :-)

Ne pense pas aux arbitrages et à ce type d'ennuis.

Wikipedia doit rester un plaisir.

J'ai commencé à contribuer sur la wikipedia anglophone pour la mine de connaissances qu'elle constituait mais vu l'impossibilité de travailler de manière collaborative et les problèmes de communication, je me suis vite retourné vers la wikipedia francophone.

Note que je suis plutôt une vision pro-israélienne de l'histoire mais que cela ne m'empêche pas de régider de manière neutre et de présenter les points de vue de tous; c'est tellement simple et enrichissant.

Enfin, bref...

A+ et bonne continuation. Alithien 09:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Dans ces discussions-ci, cela parait plutot anti-israelien

Hi, very sincerely, I don't think like you the real problem is to be pro-X or anti-Y.

The problem is that people with convictions write articles for which they lack real know-how.

And sometimes, just the fact to report thinks all historians know but that are not in the wide-public (where propaganda has been very active) puts a sticker on them with a potential biaised view.

And these article are in perpetual conflict.

Maybe they should be forbidden to "traditonnal users" and we should ask some historians to write them.

... Alithien 10:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

fr:exode palestinien

Si cela t'intéresse, il y a plein d'articles qui ne demandent qu'à être complétés sur wp:fr.
Ici, on essaie de faire entendre sa voix.
Sur :fr, on manque plutôt de mains pour rédiger...
A+, Alithien 16:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Cutting the Palestinian Exodus

Pedro,

Thank you working hard to ensure the quality of the Palestinian Exodus article. But I respectfully disagree with some of the reverts that you have pursued.

The revert at 7:07 was fine, but the one at 7:13 introduces unnecessary information, and concludes as to the meaning of the quotation (bordering on OR). Any reader can easily see that this is an order to expel, and there is no need to beat a dead horse by saying that outright.

I am more concerned, however, with the Lausanne Conference section. Wikipedia has an article about this conference, which breaks down the offer in great detail. The question of precisely how many of 100,000 Palestinians were already in Israel is important; I just don't think it belongs in the article regarding the Palestinian Exodus. You are absolutely correct in saying that Arab nations derived much propaganda from the Lausanne Conference, but that information can surely be found in the Lausanne Conference article (or if not, it should be placed there). Screen stalker 15:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Jorditxei

Hi Pedro, just to know if you received my email with the paper by Steven Glazer on the issue of the Palestinian Exodus in 1948. Right now I am proposing new texts in the talk page of Nakba, all of them taken from that article, it would be great if you could read the article and see if you would like to add or erase something in my proposals in that talk page. As you will see it is an old article (1980) but I think this is good rather than bad bcs the author reviews the first research in both sides and it is on these research that the posterior research has been based. I find the article truly interesting, just let me know your opinion. See you around. --Jorditxei 11:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

1948 Civil War

Hi Pedro,
Could you give your mind here ? [2].
Thank you, Alithien 10:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for fixing my spelling error in Verlet integration. I'll try to remember to use preview more often. Cheers. Sodaplayer ^{talk contrib ^_^} 23:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

New sources by GHcool in Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus

Hi Pedro, I have left a message to GHcool in the talk page of the article [3]. We must pay attention to quotations being introduced out of context and in a misleading way. Personally I have no problems if Flapan and Morris' quotes are introduced to support that refugees fled bcs of arab instigation but the text should make it clear that they argue that this was a clear minority of "around 5% of total exodus". Otherwise and if that is unacceptable I would propose they just be deleted. What do you think? As regards misquoting, I give some examples there of how Mr.Magdil and Bard quote out of context Glubb and Flapan so it appears that they say the contrary of what they mean. Personally, I cannot accept this, I don't know what your opinion is. As regards the article of Efrat, I haven't seen it anywhere, could you look in ISI Web of Knowledge (I know is your prefered ;) to see if the article cited "Refugees" appears somewhere? Before it is introduced I would really like to have a look at it otherwise we may have again that the author meant the contrary of what Mr.Pipes and his "Continuum" say. Cheers.--Jorditxei 11:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I have found an interesting resource for the "Absentee property" and "Infiltration law" here. Haven't read it yet but it seems interesting, have a look at it if you want. Cheers.--Jorditxei 11:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

List of depopulated villages

Hi Pedro I have introduced the two tables that I had introduced in 1948 Palestinian exodus in the article "List of depopulated village...". In fact I looked for this article at the beginning but did not find it. Would you agree with the introduction of these two tables in the latter? Thanks. Cheers. --Jorditxei 15:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to ask me -- just do it :) Cheers, Pedrito 15:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian exodus

I am going to make a new article Land and Property laws in Israel based on [4] which has quite a lot of material on the subject. This will be the main article from which I will make a summary for the section Results of the exodus (Absentee Property). I think the only section which may need some more info is the section UN Mediation which says nothing about UN Resolution 3236 for ex. And after that my friend, I think we should go for Featured article, I would really appreciate a more experienced view on this, what do you think? Cheers. --Jorditxei 15:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

causes of and 1948 palestinian exodus

Hi Pedro,
You have just started to write this :-)
That is a better presentation as the current version.
Personnally I still haven't found the appropriate plan to write these articles.
It is extremely complicated to be accurate while keeping npov because historians from all sides are poved, forgetting to discuss some matters, stigmatizing others...<br.> Nevertheless, I think you are on the right way.
Regards, Alithien 08:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I gave my understanding on the talk page. Alithien 10:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Another user should not revert your Sandbox

You have a UserPage based on discussions at Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus.

I made some changes that I hoped you'd find useful, and Alithien reverted my suggestions. I've told him off, it's your page, you're free to accept or reject my ideas, and he should not meddle. PalestineRemembered 12:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Open both original and PR version to compare the two. I didn't think the effect could be described on TalkPage, nor does it concern the other issues being discussed there. Please feel free to revert my changes yourself if you don't like them. PalestineRemembered 08:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus

Can you explain what's going on at this article? Surely the causes of the Nakba are very well known, I've posted a major analysis of it into the discussion. Why is GHcool claiming something different? PalestineRemembered 19:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your Help Requested

Hello, Pedrito. I am looking for the comments of additional editors here. Could you help out with this discussion? We appear to be stuck? Screen stalker 22:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Pedrito/Causes of the 1948 Palestinian Exodus

Uhm, what did you just edit there? Is that work in progress or did the title get clobbered by accident? Cheers and thanks, Pedrito 13:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you asked me to put the Morris figures in for the villages, so I did. But, as you say, I changed the titles too. It's your page, please feel free to re-format as you think fit. It's no longer a "work in progress" on my part, though I've left some loose ends on view. I've also duplicated a version of the SHAI report, that needs more work again.

I quite like the idea of a table - if you put the bones in, I'll fill in any boxes I can. PalestineRemembered | Talk 13:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pedro,

I am a little bit lost.

Do you want to go on the work or are you a little bit tired (as could be guessed from your last message on the main article talk page) ? Can we feel free to edit your page or do you prefer we stay to the main article ?

Personnally, I think a good way is to discuss to agree on the facts and the information to add in ther article and then to add them to be sure everybody is on the same wavelength. It is better to avoid edit war after information have been introduced...

Maybe you agree, maybe not, maybe there is something else...

How do see next steps ?

Alithien 14:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

If you want, we can share the scanning work or we can overlap and compare to improve NPoV.

Good work in real life and on wiki.

Alithien 15:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have already make the work with Gelber's on the talk page of palestinian exodus but I think you have it too.

I check with Pappé La guerre de 1948 en Palestine and Rogan, La guerre de Palestine de 1948

I think what Morris says about the causes in Victims is also interesting because he is there voluntary synthetic.

All these are unfortunately in French except Gelber and Morris the birth revisited. I keep you informed. Alithien 17:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered and WP:SOAPBOX

Dear Pedro:
If you are tired of reading my criticisms of editors' conduct when they cross the line from responsible editing into ego indulgences, I will not be offended if you refrain from reading them. I can easily refute your accusation of when me using the WP:SOAPBOX "pretty much every time PM says anything," and even show times when I agreed with PalestineRemembered on certain edits in talk and article pages, but I don't feel it is worth either of our energies. PalestineRemembered is an adult and therefore is able to defend himself if he so chooses on my user talk page, which is where I would have prefered your personal comment to me to have been written. --GHcool 06:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Other editors might well find this kind of character assassination far more offensive than anything I've ever said: "Finkelstein is NOT a respected historian and he does NOT have an original POV. Norman Finkelstein's shameful academic career that includes: making repeated falacious charges of plagiarism and fraud on other academics, that he has been kicked out of every university he has ever worked at (including most recently DePaul University), is verbally abusive to students who do not share his warped politics, is despised by serious academics in the field such as Benny Morris, he never interviews people in his "research," he is an icon to neo-Nazi groups, etc, etc, etc. Finkelstein's "research" (really opinions) are not fit for quotation in a serious encyclopedic article." It's most definitely soapboxing, Finkelstein may have issues, but they're definitely not with his scholarship, which is excellent. Nor do they explain why he's hounded in this atrocious fashion.

I have very serious issues with Schechtman, I think it's a disgrace that any of his words appear in the encyclopedia - but my criticism is measured and careful and evidence-based, which is how it should be. PR^talk(New Sig for PalstinRembred) 16:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Psychological warfare

It seems to me Gelber and Pappé doesn't emphasize this much (I think wrongly). What is your mind after reading their books ? Alithien 09:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ques re Isr-Palest article

Hi. I think it is possible that you transposed the terms in your question? in your original question you say the refs call it "disputed" but the two references which you cite 33 and 43 both call them "occupied territory". Did you mean that the article calls it "disputed", whereas the references call it "occupied"? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 16:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Causes ; Finkelstein

Hello,
I remember you told me you had started to read Finkestein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. Did you reach chap.3 ? According to you is this worth reading ? How long is this ?
About Gelber, I thought you had the book. Misunderstanding from me. Sorry for that.
Regards, Alithien 17:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Walid Khalidi - Plan Dalet

Hi, at ETHZ, I think you can have a free access to JSTOR. I would suggest you download and read Walid Khalidi, Plan Dalet: Master Plan for the Conquest of Palestine.
Tschuss, user:Alithien \u2014Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

In "Plan Gimmel" or Plan C the objective were, through so-called "countermeasures" to maintain constant pressure everywhere against the Arabs of Palestine [...] In spite of the explosion of mines in Arab residential quarters, and the repeated and merciless raids against sleeping villages carried out in conformity with plan C, the Arabs held their ground throughout the period from December 1947 to March 1948. Up to 1 March not one single Arab village [The author considers himself in error here. At least ten villages out of the four hundred that fell in the period 1948-49 were captured by the Zionist forces by 1 March 1948](sic) had been vacated by its inhabitants and the number of people leaving the mixed towns was insignificant. It looked in fact as though the Arabs were to remain in situ and so frustrate the revolution in the status quo envisaged by the UN decision.

When I read this 5 days ago, I had the strange feeling that according to Khalidi, psychological warfare was not a cause of the Palestinian exodus and it sounds as if he considers that during nov-march that there was no exodus. (nb: 10 villages = max 5000-10000 habitants).

I wonder what to think about that.

Alithien 10:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

While he doesn't explicitly endorse psychological warfare as a cause, he does confirm its use, which is why I think the quote is valid. In any case, thanks for the pointer to the article! Cheers, Pedrito 10:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I didn't criticize the use of this as a quote.

Personnaly, I am open to anybody to be quoted : even Karsh KAtz... I just matter much on the way there are quoted to be fair and done so that people don't mix : a fact, a mind, a minority mind, a mind not shared any more...

I agree he confirms its use. But he writes it was inefficient and so, not a cause :-). And what concerns me more is not it is not a cause according to him; what concerns me is that it is completely wrong.

Alithien 11:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

UserPages abuses other editors

Well done for raising this AN/I. It's high time such unpleasant behaviour towards other editors was stamped out. PR^talk 18:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

criticism versus fraud

Shlaim wrote Flahan has a political agenda.
Gelber attacked Pappé's scholarship very hardly and Morris caught numerous "mistakes" in Two lands
Pappé states that if what Morris found in the archive is right, his analyses are biaised due to his racism.
Morris states Pappé has a political agenda.
I doubt these are only personnal attacks. Only the critics from Morris to Shlaim are only personnal-oriented.
You can discuss 100 years. You cannot state who is reliable or not except if the guy recognizes he is not.
As I said before :
1. Schechtman is quoted by Morris. All is said about Schechtman mind relevance.
2. What was the official version at the time is relevant.
If what wrote Schechtman is not relevant, any others writing are relevant.
If this is so obvious that Schetchman lied, then let's put the arguments from scholars that stated this. If everything is source : I don't mind a setence such as : "This analysis is rejected by 1(ref), 2(ref), 3(ref), 4(ref), 5(ref). Schechtman is not considered as a scholar anymore by 6(ref), 7(ref). nobody any more agrees to see his writings quoted 8(ref).
Alithien 10:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, in the article about Shoah, the arguments used by the revisionnist MUST be given and refuted.

Where is the wikipedia policy that would state that alleged scientific misconduct prevent a scholar to see his analyses added to the encyclopaedia, particularly if and when other scholars quote them ?

When you have this, we will have a case with Ilan Pappé because clearly Gelber disqualifiates him as historians [5] and so does Morris.

Trying to push some analysis out because one or the other is controversed and even false is not NPoV. If Schechtman lied on the causes of the exodus of 1948 and that historians in Israel and in the West followed -wrongly- his mind during 40 years, that deserves a whole section in the article with the references to this. Alithien 11:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Note

Just a quick note, I've replied. Mercury 15:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Your ideas at article

Hi Pedrito. I would like to truthfully express my thanks to you for your input and ideas in the Causes 1948 article. I mean that truthfully (not trying to be flippant or anything in any way here). If my comment was at all strident, it was only because I mistakenly thought you were trying to implement a wide array of changes, and not hearing my concerns. However, i noticed that you have not posted much to that talk page since our exchange. So i realize now that you were really interested simply in an exchange of ideas, and were not trying to implement some sort of external agenda, or using me just as some sort of a straw man, as I mistakenly thought. So now that i realize that, I do want to say that i really appreciated your input into our discussion, and that I am actually sorry if I gave you any impression at all that I had any objection to you stating your ideas on the article, or if I gave the impression that i wans't open to your ideas. So thanks again for your input. Appreciate it. --Steve, Sm8900 23:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

removal of Katz

Hi Predro,
You are wrong.
1. It is his analysis and his mind is relevant.
2. The only acceptable solutoin is to give all the arguments that proves it is no sense (don't forget it was written in '76 too).
3. This is not pov-pushing simply because reading this discreditates all the remaining he could write so I don't think it is that bad to leave this analysis in the core of the article.
Alithien 07:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Question of understanding

Hello Pedro,
In the readings you made, do you see a nuance between stating :

• "the aim of the yishuv was to evacuate as much arab population as possible"

and

• "the master plan theory" ?

Regards, Alithien 10:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for your answer.

I agree with what you write but I should have contextualized :-) my question.

I don't mind this for the current article.

I mind this for my personnal understanding that is needed to write -later in the future- a npov article.

The master plan theory, doesn't it refer to the theory that yishuv had the aim of evacuating as much arab population as possible ?

I ask this question because, I wonder if my understanding is correct and if not, I wonder what is the nuance...

According to what you understand, do the historian make a difference between an "aim" and a "plan" ? I make a difference between a "wish" and an "aim" or a "wish" and a "plan" but in this context, I don't see the nuance between an "aim" and a "plan"...

Alithien 15:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Pedro. Will do.Nishidani 17:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

this "some say" is weasel-wording

You are right. But it does not refer to something outside the article but to a section in the article, i.e. the 'Palestinian Arab fears' section. So the references can be found in that section and don't have to be given in the summary. If you can get the section out of the article, then we could remove this summary. --JaapBoBo 12:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right there, maybe ScreenStalker (I think he added the section) or Alithien (I think he made the short description) should take the trouble of adding the references. --JaapBoBo 13:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

structure

Hello Pedro,
Thank you for the message in French on my talk page.
I try to be more clear.

• I think the misunderstanding comes from the fact I talked about the structure of the "merged" article and you had in mind a structure for the second half : what concerns the cause. BUT I think we know understand each other concerning this.
• I don't have a structure to propose concerning this (even in French) because that is too complex (I come back later on this).
• I think there are 2 main points concerning which we have the same analysis :

1. the direct causes deserve a special section without the theories

2. the theories should be introduced by author or by theory but not in mixing them because that is not manageable.

Concerning my difficulties :

• CONTEXT

I think an article without context cannot be neutral BUT each scholar takes different element of the context to explain and put forward his own "theory". But it is well known and admitted that without a context, you cannot read events and according to the context, you can read them differently.

eg. Karsh/Teveth/Shapira/Gelber (from the most extreme to the less extreme) see

1. the war

2. the long antagonism between jewish and arab nationalism

3. the Arab regular armies threat

4. the mutul fears of each protagonist (the degree of which is controverse)

while

eg. Pappé/Khalidi/Finkelstein see

1. the "demographic issue" (in the transfer context whose intention is controversed).

2. the Irgoun and Lehi violence

3. the Haganah military superiority (which is controversed)

And somewhere in between, you have Morris who consider a melting pot

• So, how do we introduce the context ?
• DIRECT CAUSES

Morris gives some. But he doesn't give the same weight to them in his description, in the conclusion of his chapters, in his final conclusion and in the list of villages at the beginning of this article. Gelber give numerous of them.
But some people (such as Pappé or Finkelstein) claim that this list of causes has only as purpose of "hiding" the real cause : the intention of Yishuv and Ben Gurion. So how to deal with them ?
Another problem is that each scholar, according to his sensitivity and his thesis give a different weight to each cause. So, how to introduce them with their due:weight ? Having in mind each editor will claim "his" scholar gives the right weight or -at least- will claim the weight his scholar gives to a quote should be respected ! (and this leads immediatly to the run to the "quotes" as performed by some).

• ANALYSES

According to what will have been written here above, be sure that ANY analysis can look true or false, convincing or biased. In French, I am confident I can write a context that would fit any of these analysis and make believe others are completely biased and that is what I have the personal feeling some editors currently do in the article.
But whatever how to deal with that ?
In summary :

1. I share you 2 main ideas but I don't know how to go deeper into details with that structure.
2. I don't see how to deal with the controversy respecting NPoV.

Alithien 12:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

context

Unfortunately, the context is not described in 1948 Palestinian exodus.
I think indeed you are too optimistic. Let's see. Alithien 14:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks once more for your French, which is extremelly good !

Here is the context in the article 1948 Palestinian exodus : [6]. 2.5 lines on my screen :-)

I think in the context lack all the elements given by the scholars when they perform their analysis.

I gave them here above (war - demagraphical outcome - transfer idea - plan daleht - past of huge violence - nationalisms - threat of extermination after 2WW - fears of extermination - fears of retaliations - ... all advanced by scholars)

18 months ago I made this trial but I am not satisfied any more by this : [7]. Alithien 14:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! Chris 10:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

Hi Tariq

I'm a bit confused about this... Isn't this section for other parties to add issues? It is a related dispute in which both editors have been involved since a while and it would be helpful if it got cleared-up too.

I'm kind of new at WP:RFMs, so I'm probably doing something the wrong way... Do I have to get both parties to agree to add the Schechtman dispute to the mediation?

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 12.11.2007 14:26

The problem as that you're not one of the parties. That section is really for GHcool (talk · contribs), the signatory under "Parties' agreement to mediate" who wasn't the one who filed the mediation, to add other issues. -- tariqabjotu 14:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus

Hello, Pedro. Thank you for commenting on the Morris quotation in this article. Might I ask you where precisely in that quotation you find that Morris says that the exodus was ethnic cleansing? Screen stalker (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In the 2004 interview, he answers

“ They [the commanders of operation Dani] perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide\u2014the annihilation of your people\u2014I prefer ethnic cleansing.

”

That is, he agrees with his interviewer that what those commanders did was ethnic cleansing, which, in his opinion, is preferable to commit than to suffer genocide oneself.

The interview went around the world under the subtitle of Benny Morris admitting to (and even endorsing) ethnic cleansing and to my understanding, Benny Morris did not attempt to retract, deny or somehow clarify this point. Or do you have any reference of him denying that interpretation?

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 19.11.2007 13:58

Hallo Pedro, thanks for your constructive work. Please note that somewhat further in the above interview Morris says explicitly 'That was the situation in 1948'. And moreover he says that he has taken the word 'cleanse' from all the 1948 documents, and that it was the word that the Zionists used themselves. In other words, he is confirming 'ethnic cleansing' by the Zionist movement as explicitly as can be, it just could not be MORE explicit. It seems pointless to try to convince our stalker as he is obviously just trolling against better knowledge. But let us not permit ourselves to get confused. Thanks again, Paul kuiper NL (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for missing your edit, Pedro. It did not occur to me to look for one outside the talk page (although I suppose it should have). I will post my response there. Screen stalker (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If you ask a question here, I will respond here. That's the way it usually works, isn't it? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 20.11.2007 14:12

So when the commanders of Operation Dani are standing there and observing the long and terrible column of the 50,000 people expelled from Lod walking eastward, you stand there with them? You justify them?

"I definitely understand them. I understand their motives. I don't think they felt any pangs of conscience, and in their place I wouldn't have felt pangs of conscience. Without that act, they would not have won the war and the state would not have come into being."

You do not condemn them morally?

"No."

They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

"There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide - the annihilation of your people - I prefer ethnic cleansing."

And that was the situation in 1948?

"That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on."

Ceedjee (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Occupation Reply

Yeah, I had noticed the development of an increasingly surreal Introduction which was just being stuffed bit by bit by an anon IP with loads of random undue weight stuff. Then I spotted as well that the "Occupation" issue was up again as well. I tend to pop in and out of these things as I alternate between being so (genuinely) shocked by what people are putting into some of these articles that I decide I can't let them go unremarked; and then becoming fed up with fighting a bunch of editors who seem to believe that making everything merely reflect one side of a debate is somehow "balanced" or a "fair compromise". As long as it's their side of course. --Nickhh (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about getting some kind of adjudication on this, as it just keeps on cropping up, with as you know the same (or different) editors bringing the same old tired arguments up again. However I don't actually know how to go about doing this to be honest - I get a little lost in the maze of Wikipedia procedure. Another one that probably needs looking into is ensuring that editors don't go around claiming that academics and historians they virulently disagree with (Ilan Pappe and Norman Finkelstein spring to mind from recent experience) are not reliable sources under Wikipedia rules. I've spent a lot of time arguing that one on talk pages recently and fear that getting a formal ruling on it may take even more time. Sorry, I know this doesn't really help! --Nickhh (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I had noticed that mediation in passing, but as you say it wasn't kind of going anywhere. And as you say, both issues need something more definitive and binding. I'd happily help out with an RFAR, but from my reading of it if you've got what is in essence a content dispute, however absurd, you should try mediation first. --Nickhh (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

All looks OK to me, and I think you've done your best to explain why it isn't a simple content dispute that needs to be endlessly worked out through more informal channels first. As you say, let's see how it goes. It's madness it has to come to this, but there you are! --Nickhh (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No brainer

Hey Pedro, I meant of course that those who objected to the use on spurious grounds were making a huge fuss over what was a 'no brainer' (a problem whose resolution does not require brains, meaning those who see it as a problem have none!) Nothing to do with your incisively intelligent editing. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

yo

i very much appreciate your serious attempt at moving the "occupied" part of the dispute forward. it is my understanding that you are unwilling to add any of the arguments against it's usage per this diff [8] and [9]

I'm an involved party on the "pro" side -- I don't see why I should be adding arguments against its usage. pedrito - talk - 30.11.2007 09:58

another aspect you left out of the RfC is the describing of the status before the war. sample diffs [10][11].

You mangled that paragraph to make a WP:POINT and to exclude the use of the term "occupied". This is not about pre- and post-war status, it's about your disruptive editing. pedrito - talk - 30.11.2007 09:58

if you insert "the main comments", you should insert the comments of your "opposition" (without changing their context) also. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I don't get it... What it is exactly that I should be adding to the RfC? You did not participate in the first attempt at the RfC, which is why there are no opposing comments there. pedrito - talk - 30.11.2007 09:58

Ein Hod

Hi, Thank you for your note. The problem is that there are so many different IPs; I keep "warning" new ones. Well, I just hope other people keep an eye on things, as I don´t think I will have the time to be on WP much in the near future. Take care!, regards, Huldra 09:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

POINT

Pedro, the ANI you opened was mostly ignored while your request to revert and protect "the wrong version" was noted to you as false to the wiki policies. if you continue reposting this POINT issue again and again and again ... and again, i will raise a harassment complaint. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. pedrito - talk - 07.12.2007 15:57

please go over WP:BATTLE. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-19 Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Hi, I want to try and help, therefore I offer to take this case, and have contacted the other involved parties inviting them to summarise their opinions on the matter. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

help with edit unprotection

Hi Pedro. could you please help me at at the following place? I really appreciate it. I am trying to get the edit-protection removed. thanks.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29

thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. the edit-protection is now removed. of course, now I'm kind of tired at the moment, so I think I'll let things sit quietly for a while. thanks again for your help. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

CfD: Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues

Hi. please help! The category Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues has been nominated for deletion. this is a category which is meant to be simply a conveneient non-partisan gathering-place for all entries which are general overviews of various issues, as opposed to being related to a specific event or location. This category, I feel, is of immense benefit to all of us who habitually edit these articles, regardless of whether we may be more affiliated with Israeli concerns or Palestinian concerns. The category's deletion is being advocated by editors who rarely edit any articles on this topic, and have luittle involvement in this topic at Wikipedia.

Your help would be greatly appreciated. please go to this category's discussion entry, and express your opinion. Hopefully, you will be willing to advocate keeping this category. thanks. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 21#Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues. Thanks, Sm8900 --207.10.186.39 (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Boo!

Shanghai is a much better term! *edit wars!* :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Tztztz -- still recovering from a new-year's binge? ;) pedrito - talk - 03.01.2008 10:50

It even has a pretty decent article. :P We should use it and wikilink it just cause it IS that cool. Naw, pre-new-years binge! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, getting a head start on 2009 already? Cheers and happy 2008, pedrito - talk - 03.01.2008 10:53

3RR violation

Please note that I have reported you at WP:3RR for edit warring on Gilad Shalit. I realize that you're not the only one participating in this disruption, but to this point you are the only one to clearly violate WP:3RR. This is especially inappropriate given your prior warning to other editors to avoid doing just this.

Given the lack of a warning prior to your reporting it may be that you are not punished for this policy violation, but please take into account the disruption you are causing to the article and realize that having to spend a few extra days on the talk page to gather support for your version of the article is not going to adversely affect the article in any substantial way. Daniel^C/_T+ 17:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of Gilad Shalit in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. B (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|1=My last edit was at 14:32, 3 January 2008, a warning was issued on my talk page at 17:33, 3 January 2008 and I was blocked at 18:47, 3 January 2008. This is three and a half hours after my last edit to Wikipedia that day. Both editors whom I reverted (User:Jaakobou and User:Kyaa the Catlord) were active after the edits and accepted the revert, since they did not contest them. I did not consider myself to be in violation of WP:3RR since from the edit summaries in my short exchange with User:Kyaa the Catlord and in the discussion with him/her on my own User talk:Pedrito#Boo!, it is rather obvious that this was a somewhat humorous exchange. While I do not contest making three reverts in less than 24 hours, I do contest the charge of edit-warring and due also to the timing of the block (4 hours after the last revert), it seems to me to be a punitive block, which is why I ask that if be lifted. I make this request not to continue edit warring (there is a nice compromise suggestion on Gilad Shalit to which I would like to agree), but to clear my name.}}

FYI for whoever reviews this, this is the relevant report on WP:AN3. Feel free to take whatever action you feel is right (you don't need my permission if you want to modify the block - just do it.) --B (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC note

please note that the RfC discussions portrayed a +5 margin towards the use of the term even when including a couple comments by a POV violator. If you still believe the result is unfair, we can open mediation regarding the dispute. otherwise, please don't revert. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Uruguay's formal name

Hi Pedro,

First of all, Happy Birthday ! I'm not new to Wikipedia and for sure not to those three basic pillars (or "golden laws"), which we apply to our own "wiki" in our intranet. The only new thing is the Username, which I decided to make it official and unique with a password that I'll remember in the future. This was not because of lack of interest in making Wiki better, but lack of time to be a full-time contributor, hence I continously forgot my username/password.

Regarding our specific topic, Uruguay's formal name, we are discussing different things. You are discussing the product (the name itself) while I'm discussing the wrong usage of the tools (the source and the language).

I can understand your position of using the name the goverment uses, but there are a couple of things are to be mentioned here. First and very important, it's wrong. There is no official name in English (that is determined by the Constitution and goverments are not entitled to change it) and the translation used is not accurate. I believe that somehow you agree this statement with your "vouch for Republic East of Uruguay". Second, it's somehow offensive. For those who we are republicans we don't accept sub-sets of republicanism. I know that being one imply accepting others opinions, and I do, but Uruguay is still a plain Republic and the name is meant to reflect that. What is an Eastern Republic? I don't know, but anyway it is not the concept behind our name. We can not be something different in English than we are in Spanish, French, German,etc. because in all these other languages the literal translation has been used. Anyone speaking more than one major European language will notice the mistake immediately if he/she has the translation in more than one language. What about those just speaking English? They don't get the right concept. It's like calling 'car' to a 'bicycle', they are going to get the wrong idea. Country names are not just 'labels', their logic works closer to a common name (it determines things, a car, a bicycle) rather than a proper name (it makes one thing different from another one being equal, Santiago and Pedro, for instance, as human beings). Spain or England are not be called 'Republics' (at least for now) because they are monarchies.

Third, but maybe the reason why I'm taking all this time. My sources are the national Constitution and the "English language construction rules" (you name it), to be known by everyone able to be reading this page. I've already explained in the discussion the construction issues implied but what is important here is that Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia, a source of humanity's knowledge (as I recall from Wiki's motto or somewhere here). It is academically invalid to make data dependable to an ephimeral source. A name cannot be changed with every Foreign Affairs secretary change. A name has to be kept in time, and Uruguay has one, just 'Uruguay' or 'Republic of Uruguay', for completeness. 'Republic of Uruguay' has been used for at least 150 years, and definetely is the name how we have been known. You can check the head of the web page you suggested, of you can go to the British government's country profiles for Uruguay. Any product of the current Uruguay's Foreign Affairs office, will reflect the Secretary's assistants idea of the name. That's called cosistency.

Just a crazy idea.. Let's think that the goverment calls the country in English "The Free Encyclopaedia Republic", they can do it in the same way they did with that one. What will be your reaction? It will be the goverment's mistake and our duty to correct it, as we are the Republic itself. Anyway the name in discussion has been used only a couple of time. It doesn't set a precendent.

Mistakes are not meant to be reflected in Wikipedia, unless they are referred as that, as mistakes.

The source of the name? The Constitution. We either keep it in Spanish or we translate it to the language, following the language's rules as it has been done.

For all the written above, if you don't "Eastern of Uruguay Republic" (as I do not, it sounds awful to me), we can enter "Republic of Uruguay", which has also been used by this government, and it has been by far our historic name in English of our beloved República Oriental del Uruguay. (I bet your care on this topic has to do also with a feeling like this).

Best regards,

Santiago

Santiago.M.Ferreiro (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Palestine-Israel conflict

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

A case has opened in the WP:Mediation Cabal and a user has listed you as an involved party, related to edits/comments at Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The case is located at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-09 Israeli-Palestinian conflict\u200e, please feel free to comment on the article talk page. Thank you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. I felt like it was time to open a mediation case, since in spite of all the contention, dissent and new proceedings curently going on, as well as edit-protections on several entries, there are actually very few active mediation efforts for any articles right now. so this is a step in hopefully a right direction. by the way, did you know that a single MedCab case can cover a few articles at once? so this seems like possibly an appropriate way to go. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, \u2014 Rlevse \u2022 Talk \u2022 22:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted. An uninvolved administrator, after issuing a warning, may impose sanctions including blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. The Committee shall convene a working group, composed of experienced Wikipedians in good standing, and task it with developing a comprehensive set of recommendations for resolving the pervasive problem of intractable disputes centered around national, ethnic, and cultural areas of conflict. The group shall be appointed within two weeks from the closure of this case, and shall present its recommendations to the Committee no later than six months from the date of its inception. \u2014 Rlevse \u2022 Talk \u2022 01:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Belated reply to message ..

Hi Pedro - as you noticed I decided to take a break from here after being pretty much ground down by all the disputes over what should have been fairly uncontentious and minor issues, and by the constant battle to persuade certain editors that shoe-horning their own prejudices into articles, while also excluding credible opposing viewpoints, is the not the way to balance and accuracy (even if they can find something that seems to vaguely back them up somewhere on the internet). I thought of better ways to spend my December! I see things have moved on a while since then on the Mid East stuff. I'll probably be around from time to time, but will try to stick to less contentious areas. --Nickhh (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutralisation

Hi, a second mind would be welcome here to neutralize the background of this article : [12] (I wrote the background).
Feel free to correct in the core of the article and then to give comments on the talk page, if any.
Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Need your input on medcab case

See the case file, after my suggestion; Jaakobou has agreed on my proposal, and I'd appreciate your input. Thanks Xavexgoem (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

phrasing at mediation page

errr, could you please change "play the same game" to some other phrase like "try the same thing"? in fairness to you, that will make it sound more positive about your own point. I had to do a double-take to figure out what you were referring to, and I realized you simply meant to say "use the same method". And i realized that only because I'm the one the note was addressed to. others might find it a bit difficult to realize you were simply trying to keep the tone light. So i appreciate your reply, and just wanted to suggest that. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks :) pedrito - talk - 30.01.2008 16:34

Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Hi Pedro. Here's how I think civility/user conduct issues should be handled. Start on the talk page. For instance, you wrote: "As for your quip regarding WP:CIVIL, everybody here is making a huge effort to be reasonable and polite with you. I suggest you read WP:DICK before floating any more accusations of incivility." Would you be willing to remove this, and deal with Jaakobou in another forum, if you so choose? Or at least remove the second sentence? Thanks. HG | Talk 18:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, User:HG... User:Jaakobou is doing -- as he constantly has in the past also -- everything he can to start yet another edit war. I do not see why I should be ultra-polite (suggesting somebody read WP:DICK is, in my opinion, not rude) with an editor who consistently tries to pick fights, ignores arguments and perpetually edit-wars... I have been exceedingly polite with him before and it has brought absolutely nothing -- just more of the same-old. Somehow this road goes both ways and I haven't seen User:Jaakobou make a single step yet.

But as you have said before, let's stick to the matter at hand and not get lost in WP:CIVIL issues.

Cheers and thanks for mediating, pedrito - talk - 29.01.2008 18:13

Well, on the one hand I sympathize with you, and on other hand, I feel that people need to be given a chance to start with something of a tabula rasa, at least if they say they intend to. One approach, next time you feel he's doing this, is to say: I observe you doing X and I'm having trouble appreciating your motivation, please explain what you're trying to accomplish. // Anyway, we have a new opportunity under ArbCom to stop combativeness by any party. So, I'd appeal to continued patience on all sides, try to give each other a fresh start. Working from there, then we may be in a better position to deal with any editor who is disruptive etc. Hope this is helpful, thanks for the encouragement, HG | Talk 18:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi User:HG! Well, the way I see it, the ArbCom-decision was to avoid exactly what User:Jaakobou is doing now... As for WP:AGF and asking for clarification before bashing him, User:Nickhh explained to him more than once his misunderstanding regarding the "as both sides see it"-statement, and User:Jaakobou just ignored it. In the latest exchange, he gave four sources -- one of which didn't even contain the words in question -- that he very probably didn't even bother reading and just googled-out to prove his point. This is, again, something that, as User:Nishidani has explained to him on several occasion, just isn't research and just a technologically advanced form of cherry-picking sources. On the same page, he managed to mis-read the casualty statistics and when this was pointed out, he added a clarification omitting every word he thought offensive to Israel. WP:AGF? Where?

Seriously, all attempts at WP:AGF have persistently failed, which is why we had the ArbCom. The ArbCom decided that such behaviour will not be tolerated and, as I have stated on Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I will ask them to enforce if this behaviour persists. The only reason I haven't done so is out of respect for yours and User:Durova's attempts to mentor User:Jaakobou.

This is getting a bit long, so, the bottom line is: User:Jaakobou's behaviour was the reason for the ArbCom, the ArbCom decided that such behaviour would not fly, other editors have been exceedingly patient with User:Jaakobou, User:Jaakobou has not changed his ways, it is not up to these "patient" editors (who were not the subject of the ArbCom) to show even more restraint, User:Jaakobou should clean up his act now or face enforcement.

This is somehow rather time-consuming and incredibly abrasive, so I hope we can leave it at that? Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 30.01.2008 08:13

Sure, I hear where you're coming from. Maybe I'm misreading the thread, but I don't see where he gave four sources in the latest exchange. (And believe me, I also don't like poorly sourced arguments!) I see he mentioned, but it's my impression he didn't emphasize that he was concerned about "as seen by both sides." Anyway, it's up to you whether to ask for ArbCom-backed sanctions if you feel there is a continuing pattern. I guess it would matter whether he is concerned with that sentence (due to the phrase) or if he is revisiting "occupied" language excessively. On article Talk, meanwhile, I do think it might be best to either AGF or simply give a link to whatever WQA or AN/I (etc) you employ to deal with the conduct aspects. As I noted there, I would appreciate it if you (and the others) would join WP:IPCOLL if only to help us try to settle the "occupied" terminology dispute. Thanks. Be well, HG | Talk 06:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(Reset) I think the AGF argument has finally flown out of the window. --Nickhh (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, happened to notice your input at Durova's page. I've noted the incident at the new WikiProject, fyi. Meanwhile, Nick has replied to my suggested resolution at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict and I would appreciate your reply, too. Thanks very much, be well. HG | Talk 10:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Re wording issue, I guess I'm just too soft! Not that it seems to get anyone anywhere, given changes made to other articles since ... Thanks for filing the note about this behaviour too. --Nickhh (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Pedro, I've tried another tack. Pls comment again. thanks for patience. HG | Talk 19:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Kind request

I saw Jaakabou over at AE, filed by you. I don't know how you feel if this will affect the medcab case (Shalit). I do hope you will continue in that discussion. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I realize you may be busy... I tried my best to keep the article from moving around too much during your absence. If you want, we can continue with the case, perhaps via IRC. If you think it's best, I will close the case and suggest you two move the discussion up to medcom. You're also free to drop me a line by e-mail, as is Jaakobou. Thanks. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

IRC

I'm Xavexgoem on freenode. Be sure to message me sometime about Shalit. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC) (I'm the mediator at the mediation cabal case concerning Shalit, incase someone reads through this and gets paranoid ;)

Our edit war on Hamas

You decided to remove my addition:

Palestinian rights, according to the Hamas include the right of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to Israel. This will result in the dissolution of the jewish state.

Claiming it was "unsouced and editorializing". I do feel however, that these are important statements, that need to be given, at least as a possible interpretation of the offer. As it is, the article is misleading in that it does not even mention such an interpretation.

Surely, as an expert on the Palestinian refugee issue, you realize that the Hamas would never give it up - they never claimed they will, and have often said the opposite! Cederal (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

   Hi Cederal,
   First of all, we are not in an edit war, but in the normal process of WP:BRD. The Palestinian right of return is already mentioned no more than three times in the article. I don't think adding it a fourth time, at the end of a section in which it was already featured, improves the article in any way. Finally, the statement "This will result in the dissolution of the jewish state." is unsourced and commentary and does not belong in the article.
   Cheers, pedrito - talk - 07.03.2008 15:18

       adding sources to trivial contents is harmful to the article, as it makes it cumbersome. Anyone who read a bit about the conflict and it's solutions knows very well that Israel objects to the right of return for that reason.
       This piece of commentary is necessary, as any reader of this article asks him/herself if Hamas has indeed offered a viable ceasefire proposal. Without this commentary, many readers unversed in the conflict, may mistakenly think that Hamas has made a genuine offer, and that Israel has no reason to refuse. Surely, this is pertinent information.

Quoting the right of return article:

Impact on Israel

If all the Palestinian refugees and their descendants (estimates range between 5 and 8 million people) were to return to their original home within Israel this would lead to a demographic shift which would end Israel's status as a Jewish state, as Israel's current population is composed of about 5.8 million Jews and 1.3 million Muslim and Christian Palestinian Arabs. This is the justification for Israel's continued refusal to honor the Palestinian "right of return."

Even if a smaller number of refugees were to return, as little as one million, this would still alter Israel's character as a Jewish state. A very large majority of Jewish Israelis find this prospect unacceptable.

   * no citation needed here. It's "well known".

Basically, as a compromise, can we have:

Palestinian rights, according to the Hamas include the right of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to Israel.[citation needed] Many Israelis believe that this will result in the dissolution of the jewish state, and find it unacceptable. ~~ \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by Cederal (talk \u2022 contribs) 16:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

AE case

On your WP:AE filing, note that which arbcom case this is from. \u2014 Rlevse \u2022 Talk \u2022 12:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Gaza beach blast (2006)

Greetings,

Following this edit of yours, I have rechecked both sources. The German article certainly questions the authenticity of the Palestinian video footage, and the Israeli article certainly cites that. Did I miss something? Lior (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, maybe my edit summary wasn't clear enough. The article says that the SZ "brought into question the authenticity of Palestinian video footage". The SZ article, however, only talks about how it may have been over-dramatized and refers to possible Hamas security personnel. It makes no claims as to the "authenticity" of the footage. The ynetnews-article then says that the SZ article "contradict Palestinian claims that an IDF shell killed the Ghalia family" "point[s] to the possibility that the event was staged", conclusions not drawn by the SZ. This argument is also somewhat weakened by the link on the ynetnews article page to an article doubting the IDF's version...

It would be more than fair to state that the SZ claims that the footage was over-dramatized, but they in no way cast doubt on the event itself. However, it would not belong in the section "Investigations", especially not in the lead thereof, since it is not an investigation.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 11.03.2008 13:41

Thank you for the swift explanation. The German article contains the following assertions:

• "Aus dem Körper eines der Verwundeten seien Splitter geborgen worden, die nicht von Waffen aus dem Arsenal der israelischen Armee stammen könnten."
• "Zudem sind manche der Toten und Verletzten mit Tüchern abgedeckt - wer hat das getan?"
• "Allerdings muss man fragen, weshalb die Sanitäter sich nicht um die Verletzten kümmern und keine Polizisten den Ort sichern. Haben die Hamas-Männer, wie israelische Medien palästinensische Augenzeugen zitieren, Beweisstücke entfernt?"

It then explicitly doubts the claim that an IDF shell killed the Ghalia family, in the following paragraph:

"Seltsam ist auch, weshalb auf den Bildern Harbeds kein Krater zu erkennen ist. Je mehr Kameramann Harbed von der SZ beim Telefoninterview gefragt wird, desto mehr weicht er aus. War er vor der Ambulanz am Unglücksort? Wer sind die Zivilisten, die den Strand säubern? Wer ist der bewaffnete Mann am Boden, der plötzlich aufsteht? Wenn es eine Granate der israelischen Armee war, die die Ghalija-Familienmitglieder getötet hat, weshalb präsentieren die Palästinenser dann nicht deren Splitter?"

The German article then gives some further examples of what it terms Pallywood. Indeed, it also suggests that the video footage was over-dramatized, but it also questions the claim that an Israeli shell caused the blast.

Then again, I'm not a native Deutsch speaker, so if I missed something please explain it. Perhaps we should rephrase the sentence referring to the German article, but I can't see why it should be removed. Lior (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Lior,

• The first assertionm "Aus dem Körper eines der Verwundeten seien Splitter geborgen worden, die nicht von Waffen aus dem Arsenal der israelischen Armee stammen könnten." is conditional and refers, in the sentence preceding it, to the Israeli army's claims.
• The second assertion, "Zudem sind manche der Toten und Verletzten mit Tüchern abgedeckt - wer hat das getan?" simply asks who covered the dead and wounded. How is this indicative of the video or the incident being staged, I don't know. Neither does the SZ since they only ask the question (a rather silly one since in the following paragraphs other people, including medics, are said to be on the scene) and draw no conclusion.
• The third assertion, "Allerdings muss man fragen, weshalb die Sanitäter sich nicht um die Verletzten kümmern und keine Polizisten den Ort sichern. Haben die Hamas-Männer, wie israelische Medien palästinensische Augenzeugen zitieren, Beweisstücke entfernt?" asks only why no-one is helping (i.e. this is probably after the incident) and if Hamas men removed crucial evidence. There is a big difference between asserting that the removed evidence and asking if they were not perhaps removing evidence.

In summary, the three statements are not assertions. The first cites the claim by the Israeli Army and the other two asks polemical questions, but does not back them up or state them as fact. Finally, the paragraph you quote also only asks questions, but makes no claims. Most of these questions refer to timing and dramatization. The final question asks why "the Palestinians", whoever the author means, didn't show any fragments. Well... They had a crying girl to show.

The final three paragraphs on Pallywood have nothing to do with the beach shelling. It is not even mentioned therein.

Frankly, I think the article was written slantedly to spread some doubt on the incident. The fact that the author is incapable of making a single assertion and instead has to resort to polemical questions (which he makes no attempt to answer) is indication enough that there is no meat.

In any case, if you want to retain this source, you'll have to put it somewhere other than the lead of the "Investigations" section -- it's simply not an investigation.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 11.03.2008 14:39

I agree with your bottom line - that this news report was misplaced at the heading of the "Investigations" section. I hold it to be of similar credibility to the Channel 10 report, which has been mentioned under this section. Please review the subsection I'm about to add about the "Süddeutsche Zeitung report". Perhaps we better split the news reports from the more nameworthy investigations.

As for the weasel words "beyond all doubt", they were not meant to be attributed to Wikipedia but to their users, namely the Israeli army. But one can live without them as well.

Cheers, Lior (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, cool! Good to see that we could find some solution -- somewhat rare regarding ME-articles ;) Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 11.03.2008 18:11

Yap, I'm also surprised we could reach a constructive agreement. I've been cheerfully avoiding political articles over the past 1.5 years, but feel free to call me if you get to a dead end argument with some (rational, non reversionist) Israeli editor. Best, Lior (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Grauniad

Greetings,

There were no spelling errors corrected. I just rearranged the sentence to reflect the article referenced. The errors were there before me. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Note to Pedrito

Please explain your removal [13] of an integral part of the U.S. reports from the article. WP:UNDUE -- as represetative as 5 Israelis in New York could possibly be justified as "factual"; however, it was clearly more newsworthy and reported by numerous mainstream sources.

• 'Attacks celebrated in West Bank' by The Times (Hosted by freedomdomain.com)
• MSNBC 911 Coverage of Palestinians Celebrating (VIDEO);
• FOX News report on the Palestinians Celebrating (VIDEO)

Please self revert. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

West Bank occupation

Hello Pedro ,

Checking your contribution history, it seems I was mistaken to accuse you of POV, I apologize for that. However I think you were quick to say: "I don't think any amount of reasoning will get through to you".

Now, I still don't get it, why do some editor insist on naming the article to opposite what the majority of the reliable reference called the situation, most RS don't use the word "occupation". Imad marie (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted, no harm done :)

The problem is that the majority of reliable sources do use the term occupation. A handful of sources that don't use the term doesn't prove either a fact nor a majority.

What I meant with getting through to you is that you have ignored most of what User:Eleland (a very good and fair editor in my opinion) and myself gave as arguments. Discussions are very important on Wikipedia, and if you just ignore others' statements, questions or comments, you'll soon find yourself blocked or banned... If you don't agree with another editor's comments or justifications, then show him/her why he/she is wrong. That's the way things work.

Cheers and thanks for writing, pedrito - talk - 27.03.2008 08:38

Davidka - Characteristics

Thanks for the improved topic heading. :) -- Eliyahu S ^Talk 20:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Uruguay

I noticed the reversions going on with this article. Do you have a source for "The Republic East of the Uruguay"? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Niel! I admit, it's a debated issue, but as a Uruguayan and native Spanish speaker I go for the definition I leaned at school and which is also used by the government (see the English pages, click on the flag lower left and then Information->General Information). Honestly, I was more irritated by it's being the accounts only edit, without debate, and I followed WP:BRD. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 03.04.2008 18:03

The concern that I have is that "The Republic East of the Uruguay" returns less than 20 google hits (not counting wikipedia) while "Eastern Republic of Uruguay" returns 286,000 and "Oriental Republic of Uruguay" returns 52,000. That link you gave me has "Oriental Republic of Uruguay":

The Oriental Republic of Uruguay is named after its geographic location to the east of the Uruguay River. This geographical reason as well as historical reasons caused the Uruguayans to be called 'Orientals', even if, obviously, Uruguay is situated in the Western Hemisphere. As for the word 'Uruguay', it comes form the Guarani language, meaning 'river where the birds live'.

--NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Translation is always a matter of judgment, and there's no reason for WP to go with the most common translation rather than the best one. In Spanish, "Oriental Republic of the Uruguay" might make sense, but in English it implies that the republic is in the East, rather than lying to the east of something. Thus the translation we have is a better rendition into English. It should remain, unless "Oriental Republic" is an official English title. -- Zsero (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If there's no "official" English title then why have one in the article? Just leave the Spanish one. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it's an English encyclopaedia, so it needs to be translated into English; how it's translated is up to the editors' judgment. -- Zsero (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian territories

Hello Pedro, I was reading: Israeli-occupied territories, Status of territories captured by Israel and Palestinian territories. The articles gives the impression that the Israeli occupation of those territories is ambiguous, and you almost get the idea that they are not occupied. Is this factual? And on the other side we have the explicit title: Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan...

So I have to ask again, what is the criteria to consider a territory occupied? UN resolutions? international low? Imad marie (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We have international consensus that the territories are occupied; USA, EU, UN, Arab League and WP:RS. So, why is WP presenting this case as an issue of dispute and ambiguous? because some pro-Israeli editors do not like it?

I have been reading the articles, and the only sources that object to the term "occupied" and suggest the term "disputed" are Israeli references: [14], [15], [16]. Can we call those references reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in the context of Palestinian-Israeli conflict? Imad marie (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment

As a person who keeps mentioning WP:BRD, you seem to be making far more reverts than talk page contributions. Please stop acting like you're in a WP:BATTLE. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Did both of you really think that there wouldn't be consequences for all that edit warring? El_C 13:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have gotten a bit carried away... How would you suggest we proceed? Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 11.04.2008 13:28

Don't revert more than once per 24 hours, both of you. El_C 14:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Roger. pedro gonnet - talk - 11.04.2008 14:17

Note: Your recent source related activity is highly questionable. I suggest you give a long hard look at WP:NPOV and WP:DISRUPT. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please pursue conflict resolution for the Gilad Shalit dispute

You are currently involved in an edit war at Gilad Shalit. Please remember that such behaviour does not benefit Wikipedia in any way, and in fact you may be blocked for it (especially, but not always, if you have made four or more reverts in 24 hours).

Therefore, please remember: if you are having a dispute with somebody over an article, you must follow the dispute resolution process - that is, discuss your differences with the other parties. Sometimes, that is all it takes: leave a message on their talk page, and come to an agreement civilly and peacefully. Once again, bear in mind that revert warring is not acceptable and you may be blocked for it: you should consider this a final warning on the matter. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,
Anthøny 11:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Gilad Shalit mediation: please indicate dis/agreement

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gilad Shalit, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Anthøny 14:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I'd strongly encourage you to agree; this dispute needs put to bed. The choice is, of course, yours. Anthøny 14:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gilad Shalit. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 17:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

You guys owe me

Where would you be after all without my guidance and leadership? Sorry, but that just made my Sunday morning! --Nickhh (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Your new signature

Friendly suggestion: please compare it to the established signature of the prolific User:Pedro. They're similar enough to have me do a double take, in light of your user name. But that might just be me! Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

An idea worth trying?

Hi, here's a thought that might do some good. Today I was chatting with an editor from Serbia. Mentioned the Serbian-Croatian ethnic disputes on en:Wiki and he surprised me by telling me the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedias actually get along pretty well. Basically what happened was some guys packed into a car, drove to Zagreb, and shook some hands. Then some other guys packed into another car, drove to Belgrade, and shook some hands. Once they saw that they were all pretty normal people, things calmed down a lot.

Maybe there's a way we can replicate that. Would you be willing to try a voice chat on Skype? I've noticed that when Wikipedia editors get into a conference call, with voices instead of just text, it's easier to find common ground. Wishing you well, Durova^Charge! 06:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin

Pedrito, just by serendipity I noted a few minutes ago that Uri Avnery attributes that same quote to Albert Einstein (sounds more like him, but I haven't done a netcheck) Uri Avnery, 'The Military Option', Counterpunch, April 29, 2008 Whatever, regards Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

AE thread

I have closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Eleland issues persist. Please read the closing note. If you have any questions or if there any problems, please feel free to drop a line on my talk page or send me an email. Vassyana (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Exodus

So where does it belong? Kaisershatner (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kaisershatner,

As the Jewish exodus from Arab lands appears to be a reaction to the Palestinian exodus, I would recommend adding it to the section 1948 Palestinian exodus#Results of the Exodus. You could build a sub-section using material from Jewish exodus from Arab lands which link to the Palestinian exodus.

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 16.05.2008 14:29

Mediation

I have agreed to mediate the discussion in the Gilad Shalit case, if accepted by the participants. I have experience mediating in the world outside Wikipedia and have completed the Dispute Resolution Program at the Justice Institute of British Columbia, Canada. I have been a Wikipedia contributor since 2003 and have informally mediated several cases, including one for MedCab (which was concluded successfully). I have applied to join the Mediation Committee. As a mediator, my role would be to facilitate discussion. My approach would include the following:

• Listen to all participants
• Help formulate an agenda
• Identify common interests
• Identify pertinent facts/policies/research that would assist participants in forming agreement
• Facilitate an agreement and action plan.

As a non-member of Medcom, the convention is for participants to approve the mediator. Please indicate your response here. Sunray (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote of confidence in the process in the RfM for Gilad Shalit.

I suggest that we start with an opening statement from each of the participants on the RfM talk page. I've also suggested a few groundrules there. If at any time you wish to contact me privately via e-mail, please feel free to do so here. Best wishes. Sunray (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned you would be back on Tuesday (just past). We need to get the discussion going. Would you be willing to join in now? Sunray (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Gaza

I was sent to the article per suggestion of someone on IRC. You're removing sourced info, and it doesn't look like original research to me; I don't see where it's repeated in the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• It was User:Jaakobou who contacted me. I don't really see the problem here, so I would suggest talking it out with them if you haven't already, or maybe file a request for comment. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Pedrito's interest in Jaakobu -- Avi (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pedro, I've place a comment on the AE noticeboard which you may wish to respond to.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Gilad Shalit case

We have gone about as far as we can go without further input from you. I have suggested an action plan. Jaakabou has expressed some concerns about it. Would you be able to take a look at that and comment here? Sunray (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I realize that I made an error in interpreting Jaakabou’s summary of your views.[17]. Part of the problem was the way in which the comments were placed on the page. My error led me to misread the situation. I now see a mediatable line of discussion. If you would be willing to continue, I will be creating a discussion format at the bottom of the page. On the other hand, I have no objection to closing the mediation, if you choose not to participate further. Sunray (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-17 Muhammad al-Durrah

Hello. I'm going to take over this MedCab case and try to work this stuff out. I posted in the talk page what I would like all participants to do to start. Hopefully this all works out well, I have zero intention of leaning towards any one side in this dispute, and I only care about getting it taken care of. Wizardman 18:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hamas antisemtism

Hi Pedrito, sorry about that. the link for Hamas should be [18]

I will correct it. As for the Memri thing, I understand your doubts but suggest you watch the video. The sounds and image are cystal clear and the man is clearly waving the protocols around, so I think the tranlsation is reliable but I will look for further verification of the information.

Telaviv1 (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

regarding MEMRI

Hi Pedrito, I wanted to let you know that I used your comment [19] on Telaviv1's TALK page to start a discussion here: WP:RSN#MEMRI.2C_again. I apologize for not getting it to you sooner. Please feel free to comment. Thanks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Reminder: IP Arbcom general sanctions

Implying that other editors are out to "slander Palestinians" is tendentious and could lead to sanctions under the Arbcom proceedings and this decision: [20]. Thank you for adhering to the general sanctions from this point on. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. I'll WP:AGF and attribute it to you having been drinking again [21]. pedrito - talk - 17.07.2008 13:38

NOINDEX

Regarding your post at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 35#Keeping user-pages off Google?: In case you haven't seen it, I just wanted to say that __NOINDEX__ has been implemented. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Technology report. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Gilad Shalit

Pedrito: We need to shave or get out of the bathroom on this one. Do you want to continue with it? Sunray (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've closed the case as there was no will to continue. Thank you for your participation. Sunray (talk) 07:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for starting it

I had been meaning to start that article for months now, but kept putting it off because it's such a huge topic and I was simply overwhelmed about where to begin. Your bold move in putting doan an opening sketch was just the push I needed. Keep up the good work. Tiamut^talk 13:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. I see my favourite stalker found his way to the article, and is now harassing you as well. I guess his ever vigilant eye caught the conversation on my talk page and he headed off from there. --Nickhh (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Your Sig

Hello, I was wondering how you got the Date/Time Stamp inside the "box" your sig is in? - NeutralHomer • Talk 05:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the top of your talk page (and some tinkering) I figured it out. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • Work • October 3, 2008 @ 06:12

Fun JIDF stuff

Just so you know, you've been mentioned in a posting at this website. (permanent link) Let me know if you experience any problems regarding this. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

suspected sock puppet

I filed a Suspected Sock Puppet case for you here as I think you created "JIDF Threats" in order to make allegations about me and try to protect your name. Your subsequent actions to try to scrub your user page made it appear that way. If you didn't do this, then I apologize. --Einsteindonut (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Just in case this boring

thing about before and after (terrorism, Hamas, al-Aqsa) reemerges, you may wish to file this away as a ref. One of Shin Bet's authorities on Palestinian affairs has written a book on it

'On the day after the massacre in Hebron, some of Rabin's friends sought to convince the premier to exploit the shock and outrage felt by the wider public and to forcibly remove the fanatics of the Jewish community from there. A judicial opinion submitted to the prime minister stated that the military commander in the area does possess full authority to nullify the land-expropriation orders "for security purposes" by dint of which the settlers reside in the area. Yet, Rabin was fearful of "civil war," and rather than evacuating the Jewish residents, he imposed an extended curfew on the Palestinian neighborhoods of Hebron so as to prevent revenge killings. <br /<

Six weeks later, Hamas began its suicide-bombing spree. In his book 'Facing their Fate,' Dr. Matti Steinberg writes that up until that time, an internal debate raged within Hamas over the usefulness of indiscriminate bombing. Steinberg, who during those years served as the Shin Bet head's advisor on Palestinian affairs, argues that Hamas' transition from focusing on suicide bombings against military targets in the territories to civilian targets within the Green Line 'stemmed directly from the Goldstein massacre'. Akiva Eldar, ‘Evacuate Jewish Hebron,’ Haaretz 3/11/2008

ps.I searched for a record of the two bans, and found none. What happened?Nishidani (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani!

No idea what that block was about... I took it up on WP:AN/I and haven't heard much since. Just a bruise on my track record. So it goes.

Thanks for the source! I asked around a bit and got the Guardian source which is now in the article which is quite unequivocal on the subject. I was also pointed to the book Palestinian Religious Terrorism: Hamas and Islamic Jihad by Yonah Alexander, which apparently has a number of original Hamas communiques. I will look into it as soon as possible, as it would be a great help for other articles.

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 03.11.2008 12:12

P.S. Welcome back, by the way!

The Northern West Bank naming issue

Hi Pedrito!

Since you have expressed an interest in this issue, you might find the current developments on Talk:Samaria interesting. Your input would be greatly appreciated. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you support terrorism?

Hamas terrorists killed scores of Jewish civilians, and you make edits in support of Hamas. What should we make of that? Do you support terrorism on principle or do you support only those terrorists who kill Jews? Do you not have sympathy for Jewish civilians, Pedrito?..Keverich1 (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Keverich, I assume what you are referring to is covered by WP:NPOV, WP:TERRORIST and WP:NPA.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 15.12.2008 16:03

you didn't answer my question - do you support terrorism, Pedrito? Based on your editing habits, the answer would be "definitely yes", or else why would you revert my edits where I provide clear evidence that US, EU and others view Hamas as terrorist organisation.Keverich1 (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that fact (US and EU nomenclature) is already in the article and you seem to forget that they are also the democratically elect government of Palestine... If you want to change anything of that magnitude in the article, try to get consensus on the talk page first.

And for the record, no, I don't support terrorism. Do you?

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 16.12.2008 15:06

I strongly oppose terrorism. That's one of reasons why I insist the fact that Hamas is included in terror lists by many countries be given adequate coverage in Hamas-related articles.Keverich1 (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, there is no such thing as "government of Palestine". And the level of democracy in Gaza is a subject of debate. I hope we will achieve undertanding on this issue.Keverich1 (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid Wikipedia policies see that differently. You can't run around Wikipedia calling Hamas terrorist every time you see them mentioned anywhere. Did you even read WP:TERRORIST as I suggested?

In any case, this discussion is over. Stay off my talk page.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 16.12.2008 16:37

Al-Durrah

I have responded on the Al-Durrah page regarding your concerns about my edits to the article. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Request

Pedrito, hi, I've been reviewing the dispute at Israeli settlements. In order to try and help de-escalate the situation, could you please try to avoid deleting sources from the article,[22][23] unless there is a clear consensus to do so on the talkpage? You are of course welcome to move sources, or to modify the information drawn from those sources, but I'd rather that we didn't just delete citations entirely. Thanks, --Elonka 06:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, sorry for not getting back to you sooner on this. The sources in question were used as WP:SYNTH to try to make an WP:OR point, which is why I removed them. They had nothing to do with the article content and contributed nothing to the understanding, only to Jayjg's argument that Samaria is a commonly used term. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 08.12.2008 07:46

Wikiquette

Another user has made a request for commentary at the Wikiquette board regarding your posts. You can see the thread here. Pedro :  Chat  16:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

To be fair to Keverich, they didn't even have the courage of their convictions to go all the way and accuse you of actually being a member of Hamas or Hezbollah or whoever in their original posting further up on your talk page. Standards of abuse when it comes to I-P and related areas are slipping, clearly. It's appalling. --Nickhh (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Pedrito, if you are reverting an article, as you are doing at West Bank, it is essential that you also be participating at the talkpage. Please try to explain your edits there, rather than just edit-warring, thanks. --Elonka 17:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, the dispute on West Bank is a spill-over from Israeli settlement, in which I am a participant, as you should know, since I even answered to your straw-poll there. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 19.12.2008 09:14

voluntary

Hi,
We agree on what should be the final meaning but the sentence is not clear...
They agree the were voluntary expelled by the Israelis. By definition, nobody is expelled voluntary by himself !
In the sense you attribute to the word, we should (simply) remove this : they were expelled !
When I read they were unvoluntary expelled, I understand that the Haganah expelled them but that was an accident. Haganah would not have really wanted this ... ??? Ceedjee (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ceedjee,

I understand your misunderstanding... Feel free to remove the adverb completely!

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 22.12.2008 15:53

January 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 55 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Gaza beach explosion (2006). Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. — Aitias // discussion 17:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I would like to straighten some things out... First of all, the block was effected more than half an hour after the my last edit which even said "i'm done for today" in the summary -- this block was not to stop an WP:WAR, but punitive. I don't deny reverting four times in 7 hours, as several (three) users were trying to force the insertion of the same WP:FRINGE/WP:REDFLAG material, which is possibly also a WP:BLP issue since it involves the fate of an entire family mentioned by name in the article (basically blaming their tragic death on themselves). After several invitations to follow WP:BRD and discuss it (all ignored), I started a discussion myself here -- hardly the makings of a WP:WAR. Finally, this would be my first genuine block since the first one was overturned as punitive and the second one happened three hours after I had left for the weekend (hardly WP:WAR) and could not be contested as I received no notification and only returned when it had expired (see here). Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 09.01.2009 07:45

Decline reason:

Since you freely admit you violated 3RR, and since what was being reverted was not vandalism, there are no grounds for unblocking. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:18, 9 January 2009 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Oh, so the block being punitive and the relatively long 55 hours based on two previous overturned blocks is ok? I'm a bit confused... Cheers, pedrito - talk - 09.01.2009 16:47

Decline reason:

Well, the last block wasn't overturned at 31 hours, 55 looks fine. If you want to avoid this, I suggest not edit warring and violating 3RR. Best wishes, — Fritzpoll (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2009 (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.

connecting

Just connecting with you; I am politically pro-Palestinian. PinkWorld (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

Disinformation, secrecy and lies: How the Gaza offensive came about
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent
31 Dec 2008
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050426.html
Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago, even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas. ...
...
The plan of action that was implemented in Operation Cast Lead remained only a blueprint until a month ago, when tensions soared after the IDF carried out an incursion into Gaza during the ceasefire to take out a tunnel which the army said was intended to facilitate an attack by Palestinian militants on IDF troops.
...
However, they decided to put the mission on hold to see whether Hamas would hold its fire after the expiration of the ceasefire. They therefore put off bringing the plan for the cabinet's approval, but they did inform Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni of the developments.

In its summary announcement for the discussion, the Prime Minister's Bureau devoted one line to the situation in Gaza, compared to one whole page that concerned the outlawing of 35 Islamic organizations.
...
What actually went on at the cabinet meeting was a five-hour discussion about the operation in which ministers were briefed about the various blueprints and plans of action. "It was a very detailed review," one minister said.
...
In parallel, Israel continued to send out disinformation in announcing it would open the crossings to the Gaza Strip and that Olmert would decide whether to launch the strike following three more deliberations on Sunday - one day after the actual order to launch the operation was issued. PinkWorld (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

renewed truce

Hey, glad that we managed to come up with something! I would let the references stay since I bet this will come under attack soon but if you think it spoils the readability, please go ahead and reduce them. cheers, Jacob2718 (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Same here, it's a rare event on IP-related articles... Let's see if this version survives the night, then we can have a second look at the refs.

Cheers and many thanks! pedrito - talk - 15.01.2009 17:26

Arion

Ouch, I was looking at the most recent expedition of the boat not the Dec. 30th one. The sources still need to be updated and the section should be checked for POV. Should have researched more or discussed with others as suggested. My apologies.Cptnono (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No harm done. I would suggest, however, that if you see a section you're not happy with, try fixing it instead of deleting it wholesale -- it might cause less aggravation with other editors ;)

Cheers and thanks for the note, pedrito - talk - 16.01.2009 09:00

Regarding Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing

The claim was supported in the source you just removed. Why do you consider the source unreliable? Ray (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

3rd party mind on ongoing conflict

Hi Pedrito,
I think you are familiar with this topic. Would you mind coming and try to mediate between me and user:wikifan on talk:Palestinian refugee ? Thank you ! Ceedjee (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

arbcom enforcement thread

your name came up here, just a friendly notice. Nableezy (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Samaria and User:NoCal100

Hi Pedrito,

Remember to sign your post at WP:AE regarding User:NoCal100 and Samaria, or else, according to a note left there by an admin, it may be closed without action. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm, looks like it's already been archived, despite your addition... Maybe you should contact User:Black Kite directly?

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 24.02.2009 14:11

Arbitration request

Thanks for the notification. I should warn you that the arbitration request will certainly be rejected, as it is a content question, has not undergone prior dispute resolution, and is therefore outside the scope of the ArbCom's remit (see Wikipedia:Arbitration policy). However, I'm happy to help you and the other editors resolve this issue cooperatively. I'll post something later today which I hope will get the ball rolling. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

Thanks for your input. I had added the reference to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, which points in the same direction as to where you want this to go, yet in a slightly more binding fashion. I fear that if we do this informally, it will go nowhere.

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 25.02.2009 13:44

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I was off-line for a few months and just got your request about Ezeldeen now. I see the article has been deleted. You might want to check out Incidents in the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. There may be room there for including some of the information you had hoped to include in an article on the man himself.

I see you have opened an RfAR about the West Bank/Judea/Samaria debacle. Good for you! I hope it works to bring some balance and fairness into article editing in the I-P arena. We have had to be deal with a ridiculous amount of obfuscation and game playing. Part of the reason I was away for so long was related to the high levels of stress incurred by dealing with seemingly civil bad faith editors who escape admin notice (and often are admins). Anyway, I'll keep an eye out as to what is going on there and think about if I have anything useful to add. Keep up the good work! Tiamut^talk 15:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

I think that Nocal has lost the plot. I reverted separate parts to reflect the wording of the separate references quoted....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Former name

Hello, Pedrito. Please see WP:ANI#WP:OUTING and User talk:Jaakobou#Pedrito. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for compromise

So… I had an idea (or rather, cribbed an idea from Nishidani). What if, instead of topic-banning some of the most useful, articulate, and involved editors in the IP area (on both sides) for a year, you all got together and worked on Judea, Samaria, and Judea and Samaria with the goal of promoting them into GA status in two months’ time? That way (and given the relatively public nature of the arb case), there would hopefully be wide-ranging and neutral community input – sort of an RfC on steroids. If you all did not succeed, it would be back to the arb case (which would be placed on hiatus pending the outcome). The arbs (some of them anyway) seem to be saying you all can’t work together. I don’t think that’s true, and I also think that to the extent it is true, the possibility of avoiding more unpleasantness in this arb case might lead to extra flexibility and reasonableness. In the interest of full disclosure: I don’t particularly care at all how the ultimate content issue falls out -- Judea, Samaria, West Bank, Elbonia, whatever: I’d just like to avoid a mass-banning that would have a seriously deleterious effect on IP articles. What say? (If you wish to reply, you may do so here) IronDuke 02:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

BLP reminder

Heyo Pedrito,
I'd like to remind you that Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. These edits don't fall under this policy and it would be best if you avoid making them.[24][25].
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jack,

Are you talking about the "longtime in-article content" you yourself snuck in here? Your own contributions to Rashid Khalidi, Saeb Erekat and others do not add credence to the honesty of your concern for WP:BLP. pedrito - talk - 06.04.2009 07:28

Pedirto,

To be frank, I don't appreciate the "get a life..." edit summary. If you have specific concerns with regards to my edits, please raise the matter on my talk page. This notice was about writing the Avigdor Lieberman biography without exaggerations and according to Wikipedia-policy.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Jack, and I don't appreciate your "reminders" of your selective application of Wikipedia policies. You've been trying, rather transparently, to dumb-down the Avigdor Lieberman article for quite a while now and I can only assume that your "reminders" and comments are for some other audience than myself. If you have any problems with my edits, take it to the article talk page and try not to make it personal. pedrito - talk - 06.04.2009 10:28

Arbitrator questions on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria/Workshop

Kirill has asked some questions here. You are invited to respond. --Tznkai (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes

I was going to add a note about the hounding to the Arbcomm page as well, but got cold feet after NoCal100 accused me of wikihounding him for reporting his latest bout of edit-warring at Ramot in my last Arbcomm posts. I'm a little surprised by the lack of admin action so far. I mean I know I only posted there a few hours ago, but under the ARBPIA restrictions, any admin can sanction anyone who has been warned under those provisions if they continue to engage in the behaviour they have been warned about. I'm sure there are at least 20 admins that have that page on their watchlist and I've noted that Elonka already warned NoCal100 for edit-warring on Israeli settlement articles. Any one of them should be be able to sanction him for this and for the wikihounding issue which you posted about on my talk. I thought of posting to WP:AE about it, but did not to seem to be forum-shopping. So I guess I'll just be patient and wait for justice to be done. Thanks for keeping an eye out though. As for the NPOV claim at Lydda Death March, I've opened an RfC on the issue just to make sure that I'm not letting my own POV get ahead of me. Your thoughts there would also be welcome. Cheers. Tiamut^talk 07:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that for the time being, I'll give the admins watching the Arbcomm page a chance to respond first. I'm a little exhausted actually since I've been up for well over 24 hours now (pulled an all-nighter dealing with the concerns of Brewcrewer and NoCal100 at both Ramot and Lydda Death March - hours of time that might have been better spent editing article content or sleeping, without any offense intended in that statement to either one of them. As no one is forcing me to respond to their concerns, I have only myself to blame for that.) Anyway, if you want to go ahead and remind BlackKite or Elonka of their previous warnings to NoCal100 re the wikihounding and the edit-warring on Israeli settlement pages respectively, you should feel free to do so. Though if you also want to wait to see what happens at Arbcomm, that's fine too. Thanks again for your advice and your passing compliment on the quality of Lydda Death March (I am quite happy with it too and so appreciate that you noticed ;). Cheers and happy editing. Tiamut^talk 07:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:RSN

Well this whole issue reminds me why I'm not going to get too distraught about any block from these articles, even if I find it a bit galling as a matter of principle (on behalf of you and others as well as myself). It's just impossible to deal with some of the reasoning on display, and rather unpleasant to watch the usual "blood libel" etc accusations being flung around as a whole noticeboard is taken over by vitriol. Who wants to have to deal with all that, even if only in a bid to bring some sense to it? It's also interesting to look at the contributions of outside, totally uninvolved editors who calmly point out in a short post the policy points at issue, and then compare that with the repeated and fevered denunciations of individual academics coming from elsewhere. It also flags up that not only are ArbCom looking to dump out some of the more rational and neutral/policy-compliant editors, but that they have left in plenty of the partisan fringe. --Nickhh (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

Salut,
I have just discovered what the ArbCom was discussing and what should be the result soon. That is completely crazy. These people don't have any idea of the situation in these articles. Ceedjee (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That will teach you...

..to start ArbCom cases :)

Seriously, I was a little sick of the whole thing too. I made a back-of-the-envelope calculation and realized I've wasted upwards of 700 hours on this J&S idiocy, with the fact checking and everything. I can't imagine another institution that punishes you for volunteering that amount of time.

It was an interesting, and eye-opening, time anyway. Are you going to apply for a permit to take part in the guidelines draft discussion? MeteorMaker (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi MeteorMaker,

Just got in from the weekend to see that we all got screwed. I guess we're just collateral off of the Jayjg decision. I don't think I'll be working on anything any time soon -- I'll probably take a break and when it's over, all the relevant articles will be in such a bad shape that I won't have the heart to re-work them.

In any case, it was nice working with you :)

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 11.05.2009 06:42

Your signature's timestamp

Your sig's timestamp format isn't recognize by MiszaBot, the auto-archiving bot. This is most likely because you do not specify the the timezone (UTC). You should probably fix this, as this may cause discussion sections to be archived despite your comments. Rami R 17:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

RFAR/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs), G-Dett (talk · contribs), MeteorMaker (talk · contribs), Nickhh (talk · contribs), Nishidani (talk · contribs), NoCal100 (talk · contribs), and Pedrito (talk · contribs) are prohibited from editing any Arab-Israeli conflict-related article/talk page or discussing on the dispute anywhere else on the project. Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is also prohibited from editing in the area of conflict, and he is stripped of his status as a functionary and any and all associated privileged access, including the CheckUser and Oversight tools and the checkuser-l, oversight-l, and functionaries-en mailing lists. Jayjg is also thanked for his years of service.

After six months, these editors may individually ask the Arbitration Committee to lift their editing restrictions after demonstrating commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and ability to work constructively with other editors. However, restrictions may be temporarily suspended for the exclusive purpose of participating in the discussion of draft guidelines for this area.

In the meantime, the community is strongly urged to pursue current discussions to come to a definitive consensus on the preferred current and historical names of the region that is the source of conflict in this case. Note that this must be consistent with current Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, a neutral point of view, and naming conventions. This decision will be appended onto this case within two months from the close of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, hmwithτ 17:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

RFAR ban

Hello, FYI, you are being discussed here. rootology (C)(T) 13:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Consolation barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For hours of fruitless effort trying to protect Wikipedia from nationalist bias. Although you have been sanctioned unfairly, your thoughtful arguments and dogged research have given the community a strong background of information to draw on when denouncing future attempts to portray ideology as fact. untwirl(talk) 14:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Kafka Award

Someone must have been telling lies about Josef K., he knew he had done nothing wrong but, one morning, he was arrested.
RolandR (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

on constraint algorithm

Hi - Many apologies. I finally got around to reviewing the article. I have a few nitpicks, but in general I think it looks good. Best, Ray^Talk 22:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

A case in regards to your recent activity was filed here - [26].
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Your translation

That's extremely helpful and kind of you, Pedrito. It makes clear that it's not the court that was saying Enderlin had contradicted himself, which is how a couple of journalists interpreted it. Many thanks! SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

I have requested AE, based on what I believe to be violations of your topic ban. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=327933957) Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Just out of interest Pedrito, did you realize your six month minimum topic ban is expired and that you can apply to have it lifted? Gatoclass (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gatoclass,

No, I didn't realize that... But wasn't there a provision that I would have to have some good articles out there with my name on them? I've tried pushing a few, but haven't had the time or patience... In any case, you're right, and I should re-read what the provisions for lifting the ban were ;)

Cheers and thanks! pedrito - talk - 10:24 26.11.2009

What the case actually said was:

The Committee will consider each request individually, but will look favorably on participation in the featured content process, including both production of any type of featured content, as well as constructive participation in featured content candidacies and reviews[27]

So participation in FAC was not mandatory, only looked upon "favorably", so you could certainly give it a try. Gatoclass (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)