Jump to content

User talk:Stellarkid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stellarkid (talk | contribs) at 17:03, 7 July 2010 (→Good to hear from you). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Stellarkid, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Talk:List of towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestine War. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

No problem. I noticed that you are incorrectly marking all your comments as "minor". You can fix that at the "Editing" tab at "my preferences", which is at the top of each page when signed in. Also, make sure to sign your comment with four tildes, which you can easily do by clicking on the 10th tab to the left of the tabs that open at the top of the page when you are editing. Things can get a bit complicated here, but you'll get a hang of it. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brewercrewer is correct ... you are marking virtually all your edits as minor, when many are not minor at all -- such as recent changes to the Steven Emerson entry for example. Please do not mark such edits as minor, it is confusing to other editors. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the default position at wiki. I forget to uncheck that box but I try to add a summary to the edit. Is there some way to uncheck the minor edit box and use it as the default position? Thanks. Stellarkid (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read this [1] for more on "minor edits". Go to "My preferences" then to "edit" and unclick the box that says "mark all edits minor by default". That box should not have been clicked by default so I'm not sure why yours is. If that doesn't solve the problem you're going to have to ask someone more knowledgeable for help.PelleSmith (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PelleSmith, I think that will do it. Appreciate your help.  :)

"Pro-Israel lobby"

In the CAIR entry you changed "Israel lobby ..." to "Pro-Israel lobby ..." stating that the article uses pro-Israel, WP uses pro-Israel. That is incorrect. WP uses "Israel lobby" and the other term redirects there. I note that a fringe POV attempted to change the other article title recently. Please do not bring that mess over to other entries. The current usage is common usage. Also regarding "co-conspirator" in fact most dictionaries have now moved to remove the hyphen. I agree that the hyphenated term may still be used more often in the popular press, etc. but I was simply reflecting the CSM usage since the phrase was in quotation marks.PelleSmith (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the NYT usage of "Pro-Israel lobby", your own opinion based upon a handful of sources doesn't matter. Wikipedia clearly uses "Israel lobby." Regarding your statement about redirects and disambiguation I'm not sure what you are talking about. Pro-Israel lobby redirects to Israel lobby which is a disambiguation page. Pro-Israel lobby in the United States (which is what we are linking as you know) redirects to Israel lobby in the United States. Are you still confused? I'm having a hard time believing you did not already know this.PelleSmith (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yesterday the pro-Israel lobby went directly to the Israel lobby in the United States whereas today both go to a disambiguate page. Someone has apparently changed it since then. Either way, the article should say "pro-Israel" since that is what the quote says. Then you can do the disambiguation in-line, if you know what exactly it was that was meant by the speaker. Stellarkid (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again. The redirect I mention has been in place since 2006. Please see the history of pro-Israel lobby. You can link directly to it here. Are you actually confused or simply making things up? "Pro-Israel" used as an adjective is not the same as "pro-Israel lobby", besides which neither is to the point since it is not part of a quote. Accurate usage remains "Israel lobby".PelleSmith (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No response?PelleSmith (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have made my case and won't argue for the sake of argumentation. Stellarkid (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Since you have professed no confusion I'll have to assume you simply made up your story about the redirect. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As your assumption of good faith (or lack thereof) is noted here. Stellarkid (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I assumed plenty of good faith. Had you said something like ... "oh I must have messed up ... clearly the pro entries redirect to the 'Israel lobby' entries" then my initial assumption would have been justified'. Since you chose instead to oddly stand by what is clearly an untruth about these redirect you lose my good faith assumptions. That's only fair. WP:AGF is not a protection blanket for those editing without good faith. I'm still open to a change of mind should you change your approach. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I said what I believed to be the truth, and may have been mistaken, but to accuse me of lying -- not to mention other accusations implying I have been editing at other sites under false pretenses etc etc -- is over the top for me. I am not interested in any kind of "protection." The original article used the expression "pro-Israel lobby" and you have edited it out in favor of what you claim is a wiki policy. I will not revert your change on the CAIR page, even though I disagree with it. I did check out the Israel lobby page and noted that there was barely a consensus for maintaining it one way or the other (pro- or not), so apparently it stands as it was. That is a very thin "policy", but I will not argue any more for this as there is plenty to do on wiki without getting embroiled in such pettiness. Please do not engage me any more on this. Stellarkid (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Other accusations implying that [you] have been editing at other sites under false pretenses"? What on earth are you talking about? By the way there is nothing thin about WP:NAME. I suggest reading it.PelleSmith (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The implication (and lack of good faith) was here: "I note that a fringe POV attempted to change the other article title recently. Please do not bring that mess over to other entries." To the other issue, I respectfully ask that you honor my request and do not engage me on it. I made my argument, consider that you have had the last word. Stellarkid (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That quote does not make any claims about you editing anywhere "under false pretenses". I merely noted that there was a recent controversial page move made by a specific POV, against our naming conventions. It was properly changed back. The CAIR entry is not a place to make similar controversial moves. Nothing to do with you editing under false pretenses. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

Please leave a rationale for the tag on the talk page. Create a new section and explain why you put the tag up.PelleSmith (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Palestine War

I would like to ask you how you would refer to the period covering both the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Because that time period is what the list is covering. nableezy - 02:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How I would refer to it is unimportant. The question would be how most historians would refer to it. Some historians call it the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.... some the 1947-'48 Arab-Israeli war... and more refer to it as the First Arab-Israeli war. Some refer to it as the 1948 Palestine war. Most historians consider those six months to be the lead-up to the war, a stage of it, a first wave. Regarding the list, it is way too long, too vague, nowhere near explicit enough. It's a total rip-off from Khalidi's book. Stellarkid (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

gaza massacre

I am asking you to self-revert that change. Yes consensus can change but it has not yet and we have an open RfC to try to find what consensus is. Edit-warring over this is not wise. Please self-revert the change. nableezy - 03:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not wise? Then I urge you to take a look at your own recent revert history.

The edit summaries invariably revert based on "consensus" or lack thereof, violating CCC-- "Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action."

and this also on WP:CONSENSUS : Edits that are neither changed nor removed are always presumed to have consensus until someone actually challenges them. Consequently, you should not remove a change solely on the grounds that there is no formal record indicating consensus for it: instead, you should give a policy-based or common-sense reason for challenging it.

Once the edit has been challenged, there is no longer consensus. The edit has been challenged. Therefore the WP:burden is on those who wish to include the material (you, for one) to find policy-based common-sense reasons to include it. I don't think that you have met that burden, sorry. Stellarkid (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not reverting because it is consensus, I am asking you not to revert when you dont have consensus. I have reverted it for reasons given on talk, and you should read WP:BURDEN to see what it actually says. Reliable sources have been provided that support the wording "Hamas has called the conflict the Gaza massacre". If you cant see that I cant help you, but you should not be reverting repeatedly, especially when an RfC is open. nableezy - 04:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza War

Saw ur post on Agada's page and couldn't agree with u more. It seems that any position that even remotely presents and Israeli viewpoint is immediately reverted. By way of example check out the discussion page. My edits regarding Garlasca and his Nazi fetishes were reverted as were edits explaining the reasons for Israeli strikes on mosques. Tony Cordesman and Colonel Richard Kemp concluded that the IDF did NOT commit war crimes and these sources were omitted as well. Yet Goldstone's report is placed on a pedistal and is considered untouchable and not subject to criticism.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Unfortunately, work obligations prevent me from dedicating more time to this nonsense and dealing with these abusive censors. It seems that they've adopted a tactic of coordinating their reverts and come at you in swarms and try to overwhelm and exhaust you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This [2]

Please elaborate, as you prefer on jiujitsus talkpage Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gaza War. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. tedder (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How come you both editwarring and complaining about it on admins talkpage at the same time? Urging them to protect the side! Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza War - from Nableezy's talk page

Nableezy started by putting up a report on me on his talk page, which I will reproduce here. I returned the favor by putting a report on his edits on his talk page. He made a couple of comments which I will reproduce here, before he dumped the whole section, (with the comments below) keeping of course his report on me. I am reproducing it here just to help me think this thing through.

FROM STELLARKID: Quite fascinating. Now here are your reverts from the past few weeks. I included your commentaries, my comments are in italics. The vast majority of these are straight reverts, with no reference to the discussion being held in TALK regarding issues of WP:CCC, WP:NONENG, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:BURDEN. The very day the protection period was over you rushed in and reverted again to the most hotly debated text without getting agreement on the TALK page:

[3] ( restore started per the sources, this is specifically about the Gaza War; change to called by Hamas, treat both Cast Lead and Gaza massacre as names from the governments) reinserted Massacre

[4] (Undid revision 316440696 by Brewcrewer (talk) yes and you need to show consensus has changed, no consensus for removal of long standing text)

[5] (there is no consensus for the removal of this text and verifiable sources have been provided on talk and at the end of the

[6] (Revert to revision 316682478 dated 2009-09-28 13:56:50 by 77.127.53.97 using popups)

[7] rv, the sources cited show "people in Gaza" using that name, your belief that it is not real does not matter)

[8] (there is no consensus for this change, open an RfC if you wish)

[9] (Undid revision 317725599 by AgadaUrbanit (talk) this is amply sourced and an RfC is open)

[10] (Undid revision 317733746 by AgadaUrbanit (talk) an RfC is ongoing and 10 different sources have been provided)

[11] (this source should end this)changes the lead from Hamas to Arab world

[12] (Undid revision 318200531 by Stellarkid (talk) nonsense, the text is directly supported by the citations)

[13] (here is an actual compromise)reverted back to embolden, and capitalized

One week of locked then Protected Gaza War: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 04:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 04:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC))))

[14] (move up, bold and capitalize per source)reverted to the most disputed version

[15] (Undid revision 320039469 by Stellarkid (talk) removal of reliably cited and there is no consensus to completely remove gaza massacre)

[16] (Undid revision 320078418 by Stellarkid (talk) again, completely removing "gaza massacre" with no consensus)

If this is collaborative editing, you sure have put one over on me! It is clear to anyone who takes the time (the horrors) of looking back over the archives of this that there has really not been a 10-month consensus, but merely an ongoing enforcement, similar to what you and a couple others have been doing on this page in the last few weeks. Because editors have given up rather than get caught up in an edit war does not mean there was consensus to include this. There have been numerous reasons/policies given (per above) but you have ignored them. Stellarkid (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I really have no respect for you, so your moronic assertions that I only have 1 source or that I have a willingness to edit war while you think your actions are acceptable only annoy me. All you have contributed to that article is the removal of a term you dont like and bullshit. Nothing else. And you make the exact opposite argument depending on the POV advanced. Seeing as that is the case, kindly leave this talk page alone. But you have no idea what you are talking about. "Gaza massacre" barely came up in the past 10 months. But you cant be bothered to actually give a factual argument. nableezy - 13:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC) [17][reply]
  • And for each of the policies you think support you: WP:CCC is not a reason to change the text, WP:NONENG does not require English sources despite your repeated lying as to what it requires, it cannot be WP:OR if the source cited says exactly what is in the article, WP:BURDEN is met if a verifiable source is provided (and many have been), same with WP:V (they are the same policy though you probably just felt like adding some more to your list to make it seem more than it is), and the WP:POV argument is completely retarded and without any merit at all. The idea we should not include what Arabs call it is what is POV-pushing. nableezy - 13:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC) [18][reply]

.....................................

This is the list of my edits as extrapolated by Nableezy's page, along with his comments

  • [19] completely removes "gaza massacre" with source
  • [20] completely removes with source
  • [21] exactly the same as below, though he thinks it is "another" attempt at a compromise instead of the same edit he made previously
  • [22] changes to "known as a 'massacre'" when every source calls it "the gaza massacre"
  • [23] completely removes
  • [24] other
  • [25] removes from lead and places in media as "a 'massacre'"
  • [26] completely removes
  • [27] completely removes
  • [28] other names he inserts using the exact opposite reasoning as he is using to remove gaza massacre

This has been in the lead for going on 10 months, 10 sources of Hamas officials using it as the name in both English and Arabic have been presented and 2 sources that explicitly say "known in the Arab world as the 'Gaza Massacre'" have been provided. Stellarkid's sole purpose at this article has been to edit war out a name that he does not like. Users have said that they accept that it has been used as a name but they want to remove it because it is "defamatory" to Israel. There has been a consistent push to eliminate a significant POV, which NPOV requires we include, by a set of editors. It is difficult to restrain myself to just allow that set of editors to continually remove something that they find personally objectionable. I find many things that are cited to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs objectionable, but I have not removed them, in fact I have put them in and reverted to keep them in. nableezy - 23:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly this was removed from nableezy's page as "Bullshit" and a comment which can be seen here [29] Stellarkid (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Gaza Massacre"

Let's assume that it's rephrased "known to Hamas as the 'Gaza Massacre,'" would you be cool with that phrasing?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say yes but I can't. Not in the lede. It is not sourced verifiably. The only sources that presumably say this are in the Arab media thus violating WP:NONENG. This is a POV and doesn't belong in the lede in my opinion. The Arab media calls this a massacre and every other thing a massacre as I showed with news articles from prior years. This is the Arab POV and belongs in the article, but not in lede as a name! It is not a name but a POV. It would be much better to have a section that explains the views of both sides without being polluted by the the others' view. In other words, the Arab writers write the Arab viewpoint and the Israeli writers write the Israeli viewpoint and we let the readers decide. "Massacre" does not belong in the lede for the reasons I have given on the talk page. Stellarkid (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually concur with you that historically, in the past, they had a tendency to describe any loss as a massacre. So technically you are correct and I agree, that it is a POV. However, I think there are greater errors in this article that require correction and emphasis should be made on either correcting erroneous stats or countering them with RS. Incidentally, Mr Anon Unsigned has filed another complaint against me.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I as u already know, I was a bad boy and was blocked but I do appreciate ur advice. I didn't realize immediately that I was blocked cuz I was off-line for a few days. In any event, I'm back. Hope the article wasn't buthchered too much in my absence:)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are correct. I'll make note of that in my next series of edits. BTW, what did you think of my latest edit in the Fact Box. Seems to have generated some controvesy in the discussion page despite the fact that I quadrupled sourced it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for what?

Can you tell why you put a list of edits in ANI? Why did you made a list of my edits at all to start with? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

== This [30] ==
Please elaborate, as you prefer on jiujitsus talkpage Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions. You spit out accusations in shed of "Hey but that's just my opinion." Well. News for you: Things is not as it seems like if you either not look closly or have a set of belifs or opinion, or whatever, that obscure the mind. If you havnt been in that combatative mood you could get some help with interpretation of the diffs. Same goes about the "the comments that Juijitsui guy put up at ANI that you put on his talk page". Do you even know which of them I put on his page, did you noted the time for his Godwin on Gaza War Talk? Did you read the context, on the talkpage? Guess not. I dont think you have good intent and sure I dont have faith in that anything I say to you will be of use. Luck for me I got some time over to vaste. "I believe in apologizing for my mistakes and correcting my errors". What can I say? As for now I dont think you can. Apologizing implicate you know the errors. Your writings on my talkpage says you dont. Your actions says you dont. Im sitting here laughing at you. You made my day. Thanks. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 08:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are a native english speaker? Yes? How come you use plural "making charges against others". Is it a 'language thing' like a expression when you mean singular? And this "And I see what is going on, where you make POV edits and then when someone reverts them, you report him," should this be interpretated literally or somehow else? I mean is it your view of reality or a way of talk, expressing general disapproval? Also plural/singular ambiguity here. Im not sure if you also imply a trend. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have no trouble understanding English. so you see when you take someone to (more than one) wikiboards it would be a plural thing. Further you have made charges against me as well, that I am teaming up, combative, etc. That would make for "charges against others." But really, the charges up on the ANI board are not directed at you but at Juijitsuguy. The charges he made against you were by way of explanation and justification. Perhaps they are sufficient, perhaps not. If I were you I would strike them if I could and try to come to an understanding with him on his talk page. But that of course is your call. Stellarkid (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still dont follow you. Untill I went to ANI 18th october there was only Wikiquette I filed a complain. So you had good faith in my editing before that. Well thats good then. But still, "others", when you use it, you mean jiujitsuguy or jiujitsuguy and you? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

noticeboards

My point in going to the reliable source noticeboard was to address one, and only one, of the arguments presented, the reliability of the source, and there seems to be general agreement that the source is reliable. Next we can address another part of the argument, and the one that seems to be the one flaring up right now is the neutrality of the statement. If you would like we can go to that noticeboard as well to get answers on that question, and neutrality includes WP:WEIGHT which is the argument on whether or not it should be in the body and not the lead. If we could work out a a few short sentences that you, Cptnono, and I agree with to ask for opinions on those specific issues we can work through these issues and determine a consensus either way. The only way we move forward and not just continue the nonsensical cycles we have been going through is to work through and get consensus on each issue. I promise that I will cease with the bickering from my side if you do the same and we can start out like we have never seen each others username before. Would that be agreeable to you? nableezy - 21:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I don't agree that the question is only the neutrality of the statement. There is also the question of the accuracy of the statement. We have 100 citations from respectable reliable sources NYT ABC NBC whatever, that suggest that when the Arabs or others refer to the conflict as 'the Gaza massacre' that they are describing it not giving it an alternative name as you are claiming. Interpreting the sources. Is there a board for that? - How about removing the "offending" sentence as a show of good faith, per WP:BURDEN & WP:CCC at least for the duration of the question on the board? After all, you and your "side" have been reverting on grounds that it was omitted against consensus. Then we go to the board with the sentence you want in and the specific sources you want to support it. That would be worth a shot if we can get perspectives from a fair number of objective others. Hopefully we can get perspectives on the issue and not just bias. Stellarkid (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AE

If you debate every rebuttal the AE will just get bogged down. Let the edit summaries and edit history of 3 edit wars in less than a week speak for themselves.Cptnono (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I felt obligated to make a quick mention regarding Timut's potential gaming of the talk page. This is how it starts. Pushing for a long debate jumping between multiple comments and then inserting a wall of text to make it seem OK. Did you see Mr. Hicks perfect comment? I want to be concise like that!21:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I came across like a dick and bogged down the talk page and that is against the rules. I still think the talk page is where these discussions should be taking place since it is an open central venue but I don't make the rules and will abide by them. The closing admin gave me a perfect example of how it should have been worded and I agree that would have been better. I also have not been the best at keeping my cool at all times so all in all this is a great reminder. I am not upset to tell the truth. Thanks for the good words. I am actually pretty stoked that I have rescued a few articles and reviewed a few to GA. This is a great reminder to a)not be a dick and b)get out of the trenches and into the article. I'm considering going back on my promise to stay off the article if Nableezy gets a block for some period since the hammer of justice has finally fallen on me but I think that would be a jerk move on my part so will keep it. Cptnono (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stellar, I'm won't me engaging over there while Nableezy is out. It looks like there are some new eyes on it which is a good thing. Looks like everything is nice and civil which is even better. I noticed that google news hits came up so I wanted to make sure you had all of the numbers. I threw this in one of the discussions and saw that hits was mentioned again. The numbers have adjusted a fraction. "الحرب على غزة" ("the war on gaza") gets 3,320,000 standard google hits. 7,170 hits in a google news search since the start of the conflict. "مجزرة غزة" (the gaza massacre) receives 121,000 in a standard search and 833 in a news search. Double check my work obviously if you think this has any bearing on the discussion. Also, don't be afraid to be wrong. I don't think you are but always keep that in mind just in case. Have fun and since I am not blocked you are always welcome to ask for a second thought at any time if you would like.Cptnono (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy and I were bickering too much. One admin even mention a house cleaning was in order. After some chat on Nableezy's page I thought it would be the right thing to do. At the time I had received 0 repercussions and the AE case was archived so I felt like justice hadn't been done in the grand scheme of things. Since I did eventually get sanctioned I might go back on it sooner or later but for now I think the break from that page is needed. I also don't want to be accused myself of rail roading content and taking advantage of the situation (ie: Nableezy is gone lets go for the jugular bwahaha). There are also so many peopl rallying for him on the admin's talk page that I wouldn't be surprised if it got reduced. I full on support his topic ban. It sucks because he likes editing the articles so much but he had warnings. Cptnono (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are pleased with yourself

Do you really think that asking for Nableezy to be topic-banned from I-P articles is justified based on your disgreements over the inclusion of "Gaza massacre" at Gaza War? If so, I hope you pleased with yourself. I, for one, am appalled. Congratulations on your coup d'etat. I hope you enjoy removing all phrases you do not like from the Gaza War article. I certainly won't be stopping you, since I'm not looking to garner a ban myself. The chilling effect on this decision should be very good for you. Enjoy it while it lasts. Tiamuttalk 08:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how you feel. You and Nableezy are clearly friends and colleagues editing from a similar perspective. Indeed I do believe that a short topic ban for Nableezy is justified, or would never have asked for it. This particular word has been edit-warred into the article on the flimsiest of evidence and against the policy-based arguments of many of his (and your) editing colleagues. Consensus was claimed for the edit and consensus did not exist. Much too much time and energy was spent over this, and a short vacation for Nableezy will hopefully help him to get his priorities in order. He isn't the first, nor will he be the last, to get a topic ban. I meant it when I said that Nableezy was intelligent and a good writer and a net asset to the project. I hope he will continue to edit outside of his topic ban area during the next four months, and come back refreshed with a new sense of camaraderie toward his colleagues on both sides of the I-P conflict. I hope you too can do the same, and try not to let this decision have a "chilling effect" on good editing based on Wikipedia policy. Best wishes, Stellarkid (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hypocritical to discuss Nableezy's edit warring while ignoring your own. Much of the energy wasted on that sentence was yours, as your contributions at Gaza War consist wholly of edits removing the words "Gaza massacre", and talk page edits invoking various guidelines you think support your position to remove it. I would note that you removed those words repeatedly even while there was an RfC open on the issue (generally, one waits to see the outcome before changing the text being discussed) and during the RS noticeboard discussion on the issue (using disingenous edit summaries to boot). Nableezy opened both of those discussions seeking input from the wider community, indicating his interest in consensus and policy based discussions.
Editing based on Wikipedia policy requires editors acting in good faith. I find it difficult to believe that is the case here on the part of some. As such, like Nableezy, I will be staying away from discussion with those I don't think are operating in good faith.
Thank you for your reply and happy editing. Tiamuttalk 21:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR at Gaza War

Please be aware that you have made 3 reverts at Gaza War in a little more than 1 hour. As you probably know, the article is under Wikipedia general sanctions.[31] Please stop edit warring. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming here to give you the formal warning, I see Malik has warned you about it already today. Any further reverts or POV edits to the page will result in administrator action against you, so please discuss it here before edit warring. tedder (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take exception to your warnings. I think you are both mistaken. I did not make 3 reverts in less than an hour. Here are the diffs: [32] [33] [34]

First diff took removed a section of the first sentence, with proper edit summary and preceded by discussion at TALK earlier in the day. Second diff took into account TALK discussion, and was also preceded by talk. The third diff was altogether different and removed material that was inproperly placed in this section as well as absolutely unimportant to the Gaza War article. I believe your warning is inappropriate and I fear it may have been taken in retaliation for the recent AE I filed against another editor. Stellarkid (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in. I know that you are relativity new so if I come across preachy say so.
I want to assume good faith but I expect you to be scrutinized and get some garbage from other editors who feel that justice was not done. In this case, the editor does have a point. WP:3RR states: "A revert... reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." So even though you are talking about it you have to be extra cautious when removing content. Take it slow. Also, it doesn't need to be 3rr to be edit waring. As one editor said about Nableezy's editing at AE: it isn't an "entitlement".Cptnono (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that since you are going about on the talk page and no wildly hitting the revert button it is OK but that isn't the way it works. You have provided crystal clear reasoning for its removal or reworking and that is echoed by multiple editors over the last several months. Both you and I removing it over and over would just get us blocked so we have to find a better option.Cptnono (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It doesn't matter whether you've explained your edits on the article's Talk page or in your edit summary. You shouldn't engage in edit warring. Period.
  2. I don't know about any action you may have taken at WP:AE. This wasn't in retaliation for anything; it was simply a reminder about WP:3RR. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I guess you were unaware that I initiated this action in response to which you made this edit on Nableezy's talk page, and that you have recently started editing the article based on the same arguments that we have just spend the last month debating starting here in Archive 58 and starting here in Archive 59. And arguing with you on the talk page at the moment. Stellarkid (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know who got nableezy blocked, and frankly it doesn't matter to me. Don't engage in edit warring. That has nothing to do with me, it has to do with you. Goodbye. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflict and chill out
I think Stellar already got the point on edit warring (he responded on my talk page so maybe it wasn't clear here). And two admins (Malik Shabazz and Tedder) saying knock it off means knock it off so there should be no worries.
All edit warring aside, it is madly frustrating to see Stellar provide evidence and it is completely disregarded or missed. For example, right above your last comment on the discussion page, the numbers for "the war on gaza" in both Arabic and English show that it is used more than "the gaza massacre" in both Arabic and English in both standard and news hits yet you refute it. The problem with the article and why I'm trying not to get into it too much until I'm properly cooled down is that editors have become entrenched or new ones don't look at all of the information available.Cptnono (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

No problem. I'm sorry if I came off heavy-handed. I think we both just got off on the wrong foot. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about AE

I have requested arbitration enforcement regarding you here [35] Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AE

Dude get up there and make a statement on your behalf! Defend yourself man.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I self reverted the offending sentence. Too much fighting lately. Thought I'd make a peace overture of sorts. I hope it's reciprocated.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see that is settled. I trust you'll be keeping your nose clean. I'm also stoked to see Jiujistuguy making this new effort. I haven't been editing over a the talk page or article but will for sure throw my two cents in at a formal mediation regarding the line if that is the next step. Cptnono (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it is settled per AGK's talk page. He says something about some other sysops wanting to dispense with formal warning procedures and going straight for the jugular ahead with bans (on moi) anyway. At any rate, I am taking upon myself some small punishment (1 RR limitation) and hoping to have a bit of a time off, since I have been spending far too much time at this. I used to have a life before WP! I do feel the issue is important or heaven knows I would not have expended so much energy on it. I've also asked AGK to reconsider the lock, and agreed to stay off of it for full two months (except for mediation). I think everyone will behave a bit better now that some of the principals have been warned or given a punishment. Take care, Stellarkid (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the long messages and changing blame shouldn't change Nableezy's. It looks like you are OK with whatever is coming to you so that aspect is settled enough. Want to do mediation before you take off? This This one line has been argued about for almost a year and caused turmoil. Maybe we need the oversight of someone who can flat out say "no" one way or the other. I've looked into it briefly but am not sure of all the ins and outs. Thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cptnono I would definitely like to see this go to mediation, and asked AGK for guidance. From the sound of it, he is looking into the article (bless his heart, he has courage!) and I hope he will help push mediation forward. I would hope that Nableezy would also have the opportunity to engage in the mediation, since his was about the strongest in his [put appropriate word here] to get the phrase in in some fashion. There were others of course, Tiamut, and RomaC, and Seanhoyland. Seanhoyland I think might go for mediation.

AE should refuse to take anything like this (Nableezy or me, either) without insisting the parties go to mediation first . That is supposed to be wiki policy, but it is neither followed nor even really encouraged. And if they do insist on mediation, they should make sure there is a board available. Maybe like the US court system, start with a local court, with an equal number of judges chosen by each side, and where you can get at least one appeal to a higher court, like the Court of Appeals. These would be wiki admins who know policy thoroughly, (rather like the US Constitution) and I think in order to be completely even-handed, they must be strict constructionists. The edit warring is caused 99% of the time (when the editors are serious, not vandals) by a difference of opinion and POV that reflects itself in the context. So when they say "content dispute" it is never 'merely' a content dispute - it is a whole different way of looking at things.

Everybody knows that there are certain areas where battling does go on. Throwing out editors left and right, or knocking them off in small claims courts (ie 3RR, Wiki Etiquette alerts, etc) or AE is not "collaborative editing." There is not an editor in the area that will not make a lot of mistakes. But I would never have taken Nableezy to AE if it hadn't become clear that that was what was happening. Pressure was being applied to get people to conform to a certain viewpoint. This pressure was applied not just by Nableezy but by others as well.

These discretionary sanctions are the result of at least understanding that there is a problem. But no one quite seems to know what to do about it, or wants to. If Wikipedia is going to treat this section of WP differently from other sections of WP, they really should try to understand the situation, which they don't. They just know it's trouble, no one wants to get really involved. Administrators get a real load of crap if the come down on the "wrong" side. So many established editors in the area having topic bans should really tell them that something else needs to be done, a new way of thinking. Please be careful when asking me for my thoughts. You may release a torrent. Actually it was helpful in straightening out the mess in there a little :) Stellarkid (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EU

Sorry for comparing you to the European Union but I couldn't think of anything else :)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

haven't been too impressed with the EU lately, but I appreciate the sentiment! :) Stellarkid (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine-Israel discretionary sanctions notice

In relation to this AE thread, you are served with the following formal notification. If any point of it is at all not clear, please do contact me.

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
  • The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
  • Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. AGK 01:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For What it's Worth

Stellar, for what it's worth, I think you're an excellent editor who's done an outstanding job on the project. You've done a lot to restore balance into an article that was heavily skewed and did so in a remarkably poised and professional manner. Don't take too long of a break. Wikipedia needs more like you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jiujitsuguy, it is worth a great deal to me. I very much appreciate your comment, and will simply note you are definitely in the minority on that, lol. That in itself is telling. I can't seem to stay away 100% anyway. But a little less time here would make my family happier. I once was at a meeting with a drug and alcohol counselor who said that the sign of an addiction is when you continue to do something, even when you know that doing it has negative consequences. Perhaps I have a small addiction. So I am still a little bit here, and will try to stay out of trouble. Thanks again for your kind words. And Wikipedia needs all of us who are willing to work to make balanced and fair edits, particularly in this trying area. And that means you, too. All the best, Stellarkid (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tough break and a lousy decision. I guess the North Koreans won out. Don't be discouraged though, some of my best edits came off a block.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done [36]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was one strange dude as well as self destructive.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topic-banned for 2 months

 Further to this AE complaint, and by the provisions of this remedy of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case, I am banning you for 2 months from editing all pages (including both article and article talk pages) within those topic areas which relate to the Palestine-Israel articles case. If you violate this topic ban, you will be blocked for disruption (for any duration less than the time remaining of the topic ban).

I am sorry that it came to this. If I can be of assistance, or you need guidance, please contact me. AGK 23:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yom Kippur War

Do you know anything about the Yom Kippur War or have an interest in it?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--anything in particular you are interested in? I have a biggish library. Stellarkid (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does ur topic ban preclude you from making edits to the Yom Kippur War?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. My first inclination was to say, "of course" -- but on second thought -- that's an interesting question. The topic ban is I-P, it is not I-A. Were the P's involved? One can't really generalize form I-P to I-A or else one could generalize to anything. I'll have to think on it a bit. I noticed these two edits today [37], followed by this edit and this one [38] giving credit where credit is due (though no record of sharing)- could speak to tag-teaming. Though those are in the topic area, and this one is not necessarily so. So I'm thinking. Stellarkid (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Stellarkid (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted., from WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict. That is the area of conflict of the topic ban and Yom Kippur War is without question within that topic area. nableezy - 05:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did go back and review it. And I do so appreciate your keeping an eye on my talk page and my edits. Stellarkid (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To my understanding, the topic ban precludes u from editing I-P issues but not I-A. Why don't you ask AKG for clarification.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jiujitsuguy, Nableezy is right and the relevant passage is "The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted." It does seem broad, considering... But it is so written: WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict Stellarkid (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, though it appears from the above that the courtesy is not one-sided. nableezy - 06:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom

Hey dude! How does it feel to be a free man and off the Wiki drug for two months? I'm a bit envious :)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once a dick an addict, always an addict. I am lurking. Thinking about the difference between history and historiography in relation to I-P conflict in WP, and interested in the current dynamics. I see we have got nowhere with the "m" word. The powers that be can penalize us, but can't or wont help us resolve these conflicts. AGK is running for arbitrator so he is busy and probably the last thing he wants is to get involved with anything at all to do with this conflict. Perhaps I will take a look at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation -- but everyone has to be willing and sign on. Maybe with Nableezy and me off it can be mediated better. Stellarkid (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I am watching, too. It looks like Nableezy already violated his sanction but it was so minor I don't think it matters. In regards to the massacre thing, I have been meaning to open up mediation (AGK said formal or informal would be OK for this case) but have been holding back in the hopes that it would get fixed over there on its own.Cptnono (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts

  • In 1975, well-known literary scholar and dedicated leftist Hans Mayer wrote, “Whoever attacks Zionism, but by no means wishes to say anything against the Jews, is fooling himself and others. The State of Israel is a Jewish state. Whoever wants to destroy it, openly or through policies that can effect nothing else but such destruction, is practicing the Jew hatred of yesterday and time immemorial.”
  • Jean Améry criticized the elitist anti-Zionism of the Left as being nothing more than run-of-the-mill anti-Semitism. In a speech in 1969, Améry stated, “Anti-Semitism was once the socialism of the stupid guys. Today it is about to become an integrating ingredient of socialism as such, and thereby every socialist turns himself, by his free will, into a stupid guy. Anti-Semitism has become respectable again, but there is no such thing as respectable anti-Semitism!”
  • International Law or International Discrimination? from a blog - Goldstone and Irwin Cotler tee off
  • Ilan Pappe : In other words, I want to make the case for the paradigm of ethnic cleansing and use it to replace the paradigm of war as the a basis for the scholarly research of, and the public debate about, 1948. ....To some, this approach -- adopting the paradigm of ethnic cleansing as the a priori basis for the narrative of 1948-- may from the outset look as an indictment. In many ways it is indeed my own J'Accuse..." --(The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, xvi.)
  • Definition of Propaganda according to WP:

Propaganda is a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.

Question: Is Ilan Pappe a self-described propagandist, and if so, can he be considered a RS for factual information? Stellarkid (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the WP article Historical revisionism (negationism) there is a section entitled Techniques of politically motivated revisionists. This is basically a section on Holocaust denial, but "politically motivated revisionism" is not limited to Holocaust denial.

It is sometimes difficult for the non-historian to distinguish between a history book published by an academic historian doing peer-reviewed work, and a book by a best-selling "amateur writer of history"; thus, until David Irving lost his British libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt, and was found to be a "falsifier of history", the general public did not realise that his books were outside the canon of acceptable academic histories.[1] The distinction between types of history books rests upon the research techniques used in writing such histories; accuracy and revision are central to historical scholarship. As in any scientific discipline, historians submit their papers for peer review, however, instead of submitting their work to the challenges of a peer review, revisionists rewrite history to support an agenda, often political, and using many techniques and logical fallacies to obtain the desired results.

When Pappe says that he wants to change the paradigm of discussion of the 1948 events in the middle east, and when he says "My bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the 'truth' when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous. This book is written by one who admits compassion for the colonized not the colonizer; who sympathizes with the occupied not the occupiers," " is this not "politically motivated revisionism"?

Pappe is a self-admitted revisionist. One need only go to his website or read his forwards to understand this. He is clearly politically motivated. Why wouldn't the work of Pappe be as suspect as the work of David Irving if in a different direction? Why would we use such an author who seeks to discredit one nation (the one Jewish nation) and delegitimize it as a state? His type of work is very popular now, this demon-ization of the Jewish state or Jewishness, or Holocaust remembrance, along the lines of Norman Finkelstein. This is the new historiography, but historiography is not the same as history, and we should not pretend it is. Why would we use such people as an appeal to authority?


In the article entitled Exceptionalism we read:

In ideologically-driven debates, a group may assert exceptionalism, with or without the term, in order to exaggerate the appearance of difference, perhaps to create an atmosphere permissive of a wider latitude of action, and to avoid recognition of similarities that would reduce perceived justifications. If unwarranted, this represents an example of special pleading, a form of spurious argumentation that ignores relevant bases for meaningful comparison. Groups likewise may be accused of exceptionalism, perhaps for avoiding normal terms of analysis.[8] The term may be a marker for an implication that a point of view is widely misunderstood, such as the notion that Islamic jihad is misunderstood.[9]

Another example might be that the notion that is pushed by Pappe and other "revisionists" that in 1948 Israel was not fighting a war for its existence against hostile neighbors and was not fearful of a local fifth column but rather that she was looking to "ethnically cleanse" the local population and enlarge her own territory.

Now I understand that this is a "narrative" that is favored by one side of this debate (which tends to be the larger side), but is this narrative factual and does it fully explain the issues involved? I see it as a "hateful" narrative that only serves to widen the gulf between two peoples and helps to create a situation that can never be resolved except by overwhelming force from some direction or another. It is a bad narrative that only serves to nurture hate. Stellarkid (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err... Isn't Pappe just being honest with his reader? If an author were to state that they were NOT politically motivated in this subject area, I would assume it to be double-speak (ie. "the lady doth protest too much!"). The notion of using the term 'ethnic cleansing' as a "j'accuse" is undoubtedly Pappe's way of saying that, having done the research that he has done, and having come to his own understandings from this, he believes that someone needed to intercede and attempt to reframe the debate about 1948. Also, surely it is possible for someone's politics to be shaped by what they find through research? This is certainly my understanding of Pappe from his biography.

Also, you seem to quote a number of people who suggest that anti-semitism is one and the same thing as criticising the Israeli government for its policies towards the Palestinians. Clearly there is a distinction. Sure, anti-semites will jump on the bandwagon of those who criticise the Israeli government, but quoting the sources that you have done just makes you look silly. 82.0.66.100 (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Appeal of my topic ban

I am happy for you to be permitted to again edit talk pages. As of this edit, I am ending the restriction on your ability to edit talk pages in the Palestine-Israel topic area. Please edit usefully. AGK 23:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ae comment

I am not sure if you misunderstood, but the anonymous editor was the one who made the comment NONE of people believe in your Jewish BS about "holocaust denial" in this edit. I reverted the edit, I did not make that comment. Your comment at AE reads as though you think I made that comment. I did not. nableezy - 19:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a note of it on the page, will correct my post as best I can, and apologize to you for the misunderstanding. Stellarkid (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wassup

Haven't heard from you in some time. Is your exile over? In any event, happy holidays (whatever u celebrate). Warmest regards,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear from you. Let me know when your exile is over--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently extremely busy at work but put the Yom Kippur War on your watch list. The article in its current form is painfully inaccurate and heavily biased. I've made some edits but it seems that there's one particular editor who has appointed himself as the guardian at the gate, reverting any source or edit that is not consistent with his skewed and factually inaccurate version. It's almost as though its his full time job. Regardless, you seem to have a good grasp of the issues and your contributions are welcome. Have an excellent weekend,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You still active or have you gone into retirement. In any event, just thought I'd drop by and say hello--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

test

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/135697

Israel National News isn't blacklisted. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 06:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting your opinion

Hi. I've started a discussion here. (Actually, it's a restart of a prior discussion that went cold; you can just scroll directly down to the first post I made today in that section if you want.) Can you offer your thoughts? I think it's very important. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great Gulf Fixed

Hamas' line of defense -- this article makes the case for Hamas. There is zero "common ground" since Hamas considers ALL of historic Palestine theirs. Where is the room for compromise here? Stellarkid (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debate over the uniqueness

Hi, I replied to your question there. John Hyams (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky

Out of curiosity, did you notice the following from Pexise: "I would absolutely contest the suggestion that Chomsky has anti-Israel views and would certainly request multiple sources to back up that claim (one I've never heard before even from more extreme right-wing editors)." ? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice that nonsense. He should read the article entitled Noam Chomsky's political views @ #Chomsky and the Middle East. There is plenty of documentation where that comes from. But we should not be padding this article with that kind of garbage. It is simply disruptive, to my way of thinking. BTW have you been following the issue re NIF & Goldstone featured here? Stellarkid (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not closely, but I'm aware of it. I have some doubts about some of Im Tirzy's findings, so I don't feel it is a proper time to integrate it in the entry. On the same subject, I'm sure data from Monitor would be much more reliable. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was prompted to go to Monitor site, I thought it would be a good idea to archive several other bulletins they issued on a subject. Hope you wouldn't mind me doing it on your talk page, you know what reputation it has among our fellow editors. Who Wrote the Goldstone Report?, Number of NGO citations in the report: "The report includes than 500 such references: B’Tselem: 56 citations, Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR): 50, Al Haq: 40, Adalah: 38, Human Rights Watch (HRW): 36, Defence of Children International – Palestine Section (DCI-PS): 28, Breaking the Silence: 27, Amnesty International: 27". --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 07:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From Monitor's researcher published in YNET: In parallel, HRW joined in the chorus defending the New Israel Fund (NIF), which has recently come under fire for funding Israeli NGOs that contributed to the Goldstone Report. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mind at all. Finding the articles quite interesting myself. Thanks. Stellarkid (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Purim!


Mbz1 (talk) is wishing you a Happy Purim! This greeting promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy Purim, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.

Israel-Palestine and edit warring

You have been topic banned in the past, so you should know better. Currently, you are engaged in an edit war on an article which has current ArbCom general sanctions. Please review those and WP:3RR. Do not edit war any further, and consider self-reverting, and taking your issues to talk. If the disruption continues, you will be subject to blocks and/or topic bans. If you have any questions about what is and isn't appropriate editing behavior, ask now before you edit further. -Andrew c [talk] 16:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to you on my talk page. -Andrew c [talk] 21:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And your good advice

Stellar, please remember my quotes of the day :) Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Your highly offensive personal attacks

You can't ignore this Stellarkid -- I have just read your comments here which are directed at me. People like you who make such vile and offensive accusations to other editors are not fit to be allowed to edit Wikipedia. I have reported you!!!!! I am disgusted!! Vexorg (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am equally offended by your comments, for example claiming (and editing to the effect) that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are not hoaxes but true; arguing that "Zionist Occupation Government" is not an antisemitic comment, by rewriting the Anti-Defamation League article to call it a "Zionist" organization. I was equally offended by your attack on Mbz1, referring to a "current obsessive campaign" "chasing after those who make edits that oppose his political opinion" and claiming that she is "trying to demonize" you, when in fact she is merely putting up evidence of your editing and asking the Wiki community to take a look and come to their own conclusions. We are all entitled to our own determination of what we consider "vile and offensive accusations", and I agree with some other editors that accusations that imply that the Protocols are true, or suggestions that there is nothing anti-Jewish in the concept of a Zionist Occupied government qualifies as offensive and arguably "racist" or "bigoted." I suggested that you educate yourself rather than pointing fingers at what you call others' "political agendas." You have been destabilizing articles to put forward your bias. You threw your cards on the table and I just called it as I saw it. Stellarkid (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIC Zionist Occupied Government is not racist. Why? becuase Zionism is a political movement not a race. Zionism does not speak for all Jews and if you say it does then YOU are offending many Jews. So no, there is nothing anti-Semitic about ZOG IMO. And I have nowhere implied or said the 'Protocols' are true, to claim otherwise is a lie. As to suggesting I educate myself, I suggest YOU educate yourself about 'Zionism' and how it does not always equal 'Jewish' and then you might not run the risk of offending Jews who are against Zionism. And regards Mbz1 who has exposed herself as nothing more than a childish obsessive I am entitled to defend myself against such a tirade which is fuelled by nothing more than a political agenda. I've looked into MBz1's history and there's issue after issue where she has childishly attacked people who edit in a manner which oppose her political agenda and her 'cause'. She picked on the wrong person this time. You also appear to be part of that cause. Now you are entitled to say you find my edits offensive, but making offensive personal attacks by calling my a racist and bigot is out of order and I have reported you.Vexorg (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to what you said above: "And I have nowhere implied or said the 'Protocols' are true, to claim otherwise is a lie. " When you strike out "antisemitic hoax" [39] as you did in that diff, you are leaving the reader with the impression that the Protocols are not an antisemitic hoax, thus implying that they are possibly true. So who is telling stories now? Stellarkid (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

are the Protocols an antisemitic hoax according to RS?

The only thing I wish for

Is that the sin we discussed last night was one the reasons to indefinitely ban all its. How much better Wikipedia would have been then! Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not start your own wiki ? Then you can fill it full of all the propaganda you like and no one can stop you. Be much easier surely? Vexorg (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the expression Zionist Occupation Government considered antisemitic according to RS?

  • "The meaning of ZOG is Zionist Occupation Government. It is a concept whose source is in the American radical-right propaganda and it has become well-known in the international Neo-Nazi and radical right arena. The concept refers to Jewish control over all government institutions, the media and so forth in the U.S., through the Zionist/Jewish lobby. It is also possible to find the term today in anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic Islamic propaganda." [40] From the Israeli government
  • Anti-Semitism in America, by Leonard Dinnerstein; A Scapegoat in the New Wilderness, by Frederic Cople Jaher & Reviewed by Jack Wertheimer "The Aryan Nation exploits the media to spread its paranoid message of armed resistance to the “Zionist Occupation Government” in Washington..... The ancient canard of Jewish complicity..."
  • The Stephen Roth Institute for the study of contemporary antisemitism and Racism at Tel Aviv University "Australian National Socialist Movement (ANSM) seeking recruits to combat "Jewish bankers" in the interests of "a future for white children." In areas where ANSM material was distributed, the signature C-18, identified with the UK fascist group Combat 18, appeared with graffiti, such as "Jews out," "Zionist Occupation Government" and the words "Levi" and "C-18," together with swastikas."
  • From David Chalmer's book How the Ku Klux Klan Helped the Civil Rights Movement "Many of the members of these groups are avid believers in the "Zionist Occupation Government." Zionist Occupation Government (abbreviated as ZOG) is an antisemitic conspiracy theory according to which Jews secretly control a country, while the formal government is a puppet regime. .....[This is] found in neo-Nazi William Pierces's The Turner Diaries...

How is your English :)

Hi Stellar, I wrote an article here, but you know my English, is not so great. If you have a time please do improve it. You are also welcome to add new Info. Best.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stellar

I stand my my work on the project over the last five years, so you can please either report me, or else stop making threats to report me. Up to you. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI comment

Could you please clarify if your comment was in response to me or Unomi? I think you were responding to what Unomi was saying, but the way you threaded it suggests you were replying to me. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Ncm, that was a reply to you. Or am I wrong in thinking that you are not supporting a topic ban on both users but saying that an interaction ban is sufficient? Stellarkid (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You would be wrong in thinking I support any restriction at this point; I pointed out my understanding that the proposed interaction ban should address the type of issue raised (in the comment I was responding to). If I do support, I generally say so explicitly, even if it is a mere inclination. However, it would be equally wrong to construe this as suggesting I oppose either - I simply have not made a view. If you prefer, I could make this response there, but I wanted to give you an opportunity to clarify/refactor/remove so that the thread isn't distracted by comments about a view by me that was never made. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stellar, what is "grandstanding"? --Mbz1 (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


== Vexorg thing ==

Stellar, I do no think you should bother to try to bring Vexorg to their sences. It is all, but impossible :) Besides the user is very upset that their silly changes to the articles [41], [42], and so one are being reverted. Besides the user still cannot get over that they were not allowed to add to Tony Blair article that Tony "Blair has been a long time member of the Zionist Lobby group". So there's no reason to spend time responding to that user. IMO they will be much better off, if ignored. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, and besides I have a more interesting thing to do. I just started writing a new article Maimonides Synagogue. BTW please feel free to fix my English, if you have a time. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[43] the user admitted he was editing as that IP. Said he forgot to log in. The edited articles are the subject of slow edit war in which the user is engaged as usually. Best.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then why is Vexorg harrassing him about that? Vexorg has admitted to doing the same thing here: [44] . It is not addressing the articles he is editwarring about, but harping on the contributors and not the content. Stellarkid (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar, it is what he's always doing. Remember this one "Identity of IP above - The IP 173.52.134.191 above is user:Mbz1, the author of the article in question" ?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who brought that sockpuppet investigation anyway? the one for you I mean? Stellarkid (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes I remember now. Stellarkid (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI--Mbz1 (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re ANI

Hi Stellarkid, I urge you to review the link I used as motivation and edit your ani post to at the very least reflect reality, thanks. Unomi (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AE

Please see page here [45] Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Seth J. Frantzman

An article that you have been involved in editing, Seth J. Frantzman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth J. Frantzman. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let them have it their way

Better take a look at a small wonder I found yesterday, when I was preparing the salad File:Baby Bell pepper Capsicum annuum.jpg :) I am never getting tired of the amazing shapes the Nature has to offer.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look! It's a swan!  :) Stellarkid (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the complaint against Vexorg would have gotten a somewhat more reasoned discussion at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. AN/I is always risky, and things there can suddenly take an unpleasant turn. [46]. - 173.52.124.223 (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you are doubtless right. I thought I would go to the least enforcement agency first to demonstrate my good faith. No doubt they will ban me instead! [47] Best, Stellarkid (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AN/I functions as WP's Colosseum. Or sometimes just a lynch mob. Of course, it is wiki-gladiator shows, and wiki-lynchings, but nevertheless the process can induce stress. Its important not to let the stress get to you, because stress is bad for your health. Remember this is just Wikipedia, and nothing important. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vexorg AN/I

Hi Stellarkid, I'm replying to your comment on Mbz1's talk page. It's possible you made a mistake in who you notified and who you didn't, but hopefully you can understand how it might come across as suspicious to others. However, as I tried to explain at AN/I, I also found the general format of the report to be somewhat exaggerated, and possibly misleading. Personally, I would have just linked the two diffs in which Vexorg was canvassing, because that seemed like the strongest, most clear cut case. Adding more diffs doesn't make it more obvious that Vexorg is violating policies, and doesn't increase the likelihood that he gets punished, it just makes it less likely that a consensus emerges on what infractions Vexorg was or wasn't guilty of. Regarding the incivility, did you warn Vexorg that his comments about "untruths" and "lack of knowledge" were uncivil? Did anyone? WP:WQA would have been a good place to take that. If he was already warned about that, then it may have been worth bringing to AN/I, but you didn't provide a link to any warnings issued to him. Disruptive editing is one of the hardest things to prove - something I've experienced myself all too well - but while your diffs show a content dispute and some incivility, I'm not sure that they show disruptive editing. Or, at the very least, it's unclear, in part because of how much random stuff was thrown in there. I'll try to take another look at my comments in the AN/I when I have time (hopefully later today), and see if my views have changed. ← George talk 22:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not warn him at that page, but if you see my diffs on the one I filed last week, starting with this outrageous and false comment at an AfD that Mbz1 authored. All sorts of people jumped on him for it and it was a big issue as to whether it should remain in the Afd or be struck. The point there was that he accused someone falsely, in ignorance he claims, and I believed him that it was in ignorance, but it was a bad comment and he never apologized for it, instead, claiming his is a victim of Mbz1 and her "obsessive campaigns" against him, and posting this diff accusing Mbz1 and me of being part of the Zionist lobby. This is all a part of his disruptive editing as far as I am concerned and I put it up earlier and maybe I should have added it to this one but it gets discouraging sometimes. I don't know that I actually did personally warn him at his page. I would have to go look.
There are plenty of other editors who have however, such as User:CordeliaNaismith -[48] and here is his response: [49] and here [50]. I have not actually come across CordeliaNaismith until she posted at the ANI. Maybe I didn't do a good job on the ANI report, whatever. Hardly care anymore though. It isn't worth the crap that gets thrown back in one's face. Stellarkid (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, these diffs are more concerning that many of the ones you posted at AN/I. For what it's worth, I've refactored my comments on the AN/I. ← George talk 07:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you George for being open-minded and honestly looking into the situation and not "sticking to your guns". This isn't often seen around here. It is noted. Stellarkid (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User page quotes

Hello Stellarkid, your user page contains the following two quotes -

In 1975, well-known literary scholar and dedicated leftist Hans Mayer wrote, “Whoever attacks Zionism, but by no means wishes to say anything against the Jews, is fooling himself and others. The State of Israel is a Jewish state. Whoever wants to destroy it, openly or through policies that can effect nothing else but such destruction, is practicing the Jew hatred of yesterday and time immemorial.”



Jean Améry criticized the elitist anti-Zionism of the Left as being nothing more than run-of-the-mill anti-Semitism. In a speech in 1969, Améry stated, “Anti-Semitism was once the socialism of the stupid guys. Today it is about to become an integrating ingredient of socialism as such, and thereby every socialist turns himself, by his free will, into a stupid guy. Anti-Semitism has become respectable again, but there is no such thing as respectable anti-Semitism!”

I would appreciate you removing the quotes since they accuse anti-Zionists of being latent antisemites. These quotes "vilify, reject, deny the legitimacy or right to existence of one side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" by labeling all those who oppose Israel as racist bigots and are thus detrimental to good faith cooperation between editors in this topic area. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. Factomancer (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. Anyone who opposes Israel as plainly as that but denies anti-Semitism IS fooling himself and others. Denying Jews the same right of self-determination as any other nationality (say, Australians) is anti-Semitism. There is nothing wrong with the quote, and if Stellarkid wishes to have it on his page, then you're going to have to live with it. As for your claim that the quotes vilify one side of the I-P conflict, you are demonstrating the epitome of the problem. You are trying to turn the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into an Israeli-ANTI Israel conflict. There is no vilification of Palestinians in those paragraphs, and anyone engaging in "opposing Israel" on Wikipedia the way you put it is completely out of line, the same way it would be for someone to "oppose Australia". PS: it's interesting seeing you tell someone that they should avoid calling people racist when you have in the recent past told Mbz1 that she is racist towards Palestinians. Very interesting indeed. Breein1007 (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NO ONE has the right of self determination at the expense of others! I find the quote in question here very offensive. Especially as Zionism doesn't speak for all Jews, despite the fact that Zionism bends over backwards to claim it does so it can throw the race card at anyone who criticises it. It's nonsense to even even suggest Anti-Zionism is mutually inclusive with racism and anyone doing so is just replacing fact and logic with propaganda. However if Stellarkid wants to put offensive quotes in his page I think he should be allowed as I am a supporter of free speech. People simply destroy their own credibility if they pull the race card against those criticising the Zionist Movement. Anyway I just wanted to say I find the quote offensive but I think people should have a right to be offensive. Censorship is a worse crime. Vexorg (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"NO ONE has the right of self determination at the expense of others"? Don't you see that I can say the same from my perspective?! But of course in reality plenty of folks have had a right to self determination at the expense of others. That is simply the nature of history that one culture builds on the bones of another. Hopefully it will not be the Arabs at the expense of the Jews. Now with respect to your claim that " Zionism bends over backwards to claim it speaks for all Jews, would you kindly document that as I don't think it is true but a further example of WP:OR you are using to further your antiZionist agenda. You may consider the European Fundamental Rights Agency's working definition of antisemitism nonsense if you like. It is your prerogative to think what you like. I guess the essence of your criticism is that you believe that I am "pull[ing] the race card against those criticising the Zionist Movement." Frankly I've never seen any of your criticism of this "movement" here on WP. Perhaps you would point me to it? Stellarkid (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support your right to free speech. Thank you so much I find the notion that Zionism speaks for all Jews offensive and I find the notion that the anyone has the right to self determination at the expense of others. Fine, I support your right to free speech too Everyone has the right of human rights but no one has the right to stomp over others. You say "But of course in reality plenty of folks have had a right to self determination at the expense of others." - No. History shows that many groups have indeed stomped over others, but that is only becuase of a greater force, not becuase they have a right. Hitler wanted the right of Aryans to have self-determination. [citation needed]And we all know that terrible consequences to those groups ( Jews, Homosexuals, Roma, Poles, handicapped, etc ) who were seen to be a handicap against that 'right' Do you agree Aryans had the right? Just because other groups have stolen land and resources from other groups throughout history it doesn't give the Zionist Movement the right to steal the same.[citation needed]

No one said anything about anyone's right to anything. You are just making that up.

The EU's working definition of anti-Semitism, which I have read, is flawed IMO. Some aspects of it are sensible, but other aspects are unreasonable. The problem with this definition is that is was drawn up with the help of the ADL,[citation needed] which is nothing more than a Zionist propaganda machine [citation needed] POV and is an insult to Jews POV and an insult to all those working against racism. POV Because of that the EU definition has no credible value.

You are welcome to your reading of it. I consider what you are claiming however to be slanderous to the ADL, and your assertion that it is flawed seems based on very little except your personal prejudices.

Regarding your view that the Zionist does speak for all Jews, then you should listen more to Jews like Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky who are highly critical of the Zionist Movement. Perhaps you should listen to some Zionist Jews FWIW Stellarkid I am a supporter of Jews being able to live in Palestine. That's Nice Jews have a cultural heritage there and I respect that.Thank you for that But I also respect that other groups also have a heritage in those lands and have an equal right to live there. That's nice too The Zionist Movement does not support equal rights in Palestine [citation needed] and thus I cannot support it. You are highly flawed in supporting people like Hans Mayer and Jean Améry who spew crap POV like Anti-Zionism is equal to Anti-Semitism. They are spouting propaganda which is easily demolished. Still waiting. Anti-Semitism is a prejudice and is abhorrent. Anti-Zionism is the opposition to a nationalist political ideology that exhibits racist behaviour as part of it's agenda. There's the nut! There's a big difference. Now I don't know, you may support the notion that Jews are superior to Arabs LOL- That's Rich! and that is your right to do so, but if you genuinely regard all races/ethnicities, etc to be equal then I highly recommend you remove your quotes that claim Anti-Zionism is equal to Anti-Semitism otherwise you may be continued to be misunderstood. Please remember that the world isn't a binary system where one is either polarised to either of 2 sides. Most of us, including myself regard everyone ( Jews, Arabs, everyone else ) as equals and find those who tell us that our criticisms of political ideologies are racist as offensive. Vexorg (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-Zionism is the opposition to a nationalist political ideology that exhibits racist behaviour as part of it's agenda." This is your definition of Zionism, then! Funny, I don't think that it is defined that way in WP? Maybe you should FIX that?! And you find some kind of justification to put this category into virtually every Israel-friendship group you can find?! Perhaps you could explain that.

"Now I don't know, you may support the notion that Jews are superior to Arabs and that is your right to do so, but if you genuinely regard all races/ethnicities, etc to be equal then I highly recommend you remove your quotes that claim Anti-Zionism is equal to Anti-Semitism otherwise you may be continued to be misunderstood." Jeez, where did you get that idea? Would you like to show something in my writings that indicate that I think Jews are superior to Arabs, or are you just making this (to use your phrase) crap up as you go along? I have zero intention to remove anything from my user page just because you continue to misunderstand it, I assume, not willfully. Thanks for sharing your ideas on my talk page. Stellarkid (talk) 06:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)(my bolds)[reply]

Zionism doesn't speak for all Jews. Israel is not the Jewish State it is the Zionist state. Self determination does not include disadvantaging others in that process. Unfortunately in practise the practical implementation of Israel is racial discrimination. it didn't have to be this way. There could have been a method where by all Jews had a right of emigration to Israel without disadvantaging non-Jews. You have to respect that a lot of people do not like the way Israel is persecuting the Palestinians and implementing apartheid in the occupied territories, including the racist settlements. This is not becuase they don't like Jews, it's because they don't like discrimination. Vexorg (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, did I miss something? Were you awarded the authority to dictate to Israel how we define ourself? I'm pretty sure that we were founded under a Declaration of Independence as a Jewish state. I am pretty sure that our Declaration of Independence continues to read that way to this day. I'm pretty sure that the word "Zionist" does not appear in that declaration. I'm pretty sure that if you told any other country in the world that they are not the state they define themselves as (ie: Australia is not an Australian state) you would be laughed all the way home. So you know what? LOL. It really does take something quite special to make a comment like that. Israel is not a Jewish state... hah! Good luck with that. Breein1007 (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Love it!! Stellarkid (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The EU's definition of antisemitism is crystal clear. Vexorg please take a look at WP:NOTSOAPBOX. I can't see how this discussion relates to a specific article. It would be a shame to see another editor get blocked. I suggest you guys take your dispute to a political forum. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifan, please see this on User:Sandstein's page. Some people are annoyed because RolandR was required to remove a picture of a crossed-out Israeli flag as "divisive." RolandR appealed, and I think lost the appeal. Now they are going after me to remove some quotes that they claim are offensive to them as "anti-Zionists." I believe Sandstein has taken no action, but a few, will continue to come and harp here. I have heard Vexorg's opinion and he is welcome to it. If he continues his rants here I will probably simply remove them after a bit. Best to you, Stellarkid (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand now. For what it's worth, I am not offended by your userpage. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


EUMC definition

From the European Forum on Antisemitism: According to the EUMC Antisemitism is defined as

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

  • Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
  • Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
  • Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
  • Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
  • Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

  • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
  • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
  • Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
  • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
  • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

I do not disagree with the EUMC definition.

With respect to this statement: " These quotes "vilify, reject, deny the legitimacy or right to existence of one side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" -- that is simply untrue. The Palestinian Arabs right to existence or legitimacy is not mentioned or even implied in these quotes, and I would suggest that you are wearing blinders that do not permit you to see it. However, the push against Zionism does indeed clearly deny the legitimacy and/or right to existence of the Jewish State by definition. Anti-Zionism=No Israel. Stellarkid (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I'm curious:

  • Israel has a right to exist, but does Israel have a right to exist as a Jewish State? Are there any countries which recognise Israel as the Jewish State?
  • Does the Apache people, among others, have a right to self-determination? If it does, what territorial and national rights does it have?
  • Following your logic, does Anti-Serb-Nationalism equal No Serbia?

Apologies if this is an unwelcome intrusion on your userspace.     ←   ZScarpia   19:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it is fine ZScarpia. No problem it all. I have a response as well, but being busy now, it will have to wait. In the meantime, if you wish to, carry on. As long as the comments are civil I have no issues at all. Stellarkid (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will comment on your first point and leave the other two out, because we're discussing Israel here not the Apaches or Serbians. I don't know enough about either of those to discuss them with you, nor are analogies appropriate in a situation this complex. As I made clear above, Israel has every right to exist as a Jewish state just as Australia has the right to exist as an Australian State or Russia as the right to exist as a Russian state. Your struggle is that you fail to recognize that we are referring to the Jewish nation, and not simply the Jewish religion. Israel is not a theocracy, and does not propose creating a theocracy. Even if it did, do you think Saudi Arabia has the right to exist as an "Islamic State"? Anyone who says that Israel does not have the right to exist as a Jewish nation, and that the Jewish nation does not have the right to their own state, while other nations do have this inalienable right, is a Jew hater. As to your question of whether or not any countries recognize Israel as a Jewish state - any country in the world who recognizes that Israel exists and has the right to exist (which is almost all) recognizes that it is the Jewish nation. That is an essential aspect of Israel's Declaration of Independence, and naturally, other countries do not selectively or wishy-washily recognize other nations. Breein1007 (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You realize you're probably wasting your time, right? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but I have time to waste. That's why I come to Wikipedia in the first place. Breein1007 (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate having the opportunity to have a civil chat. The I/P area of Wikipedia is obviously one where editors have to work harder in order to work collegialy together. Here in user space may be a better place to practise.     ←   ZScarpia   00:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'::Totally agree with Breein on all points. Analogies to other situations will eventually break down and yield little or no information, so it is best to stick with just the one that we are dealing with here, ie Israel. I especially like the wording that Breein used in drawing a distinction with respect to the "Jewish" nation and the Jewish religion, and pointing out that Israel is not a theocracy. Now I realize that in these contemporary times it is impolitic to bring up Hitler. But that is a reality of the Jewish people, even if others would like to forget it . I would only mention that Hitler made no distinction between the Jewish religion, Jewish ethnicity or racial background, slaughtering Jews if they were converted Christians, secular, or only had a percentage of Jewish "blood" in them, without regard to whether they were Zionist or not. I bring this up because to some extent, modern Israel is a response to the Holocaust. The difference is I do not accept Amadenijad's contention that the Arab must suffer the Jews because of the European sin. For one thing, Jews did come from the middle east (in fact the largest plurality of Jews is Sephardic) including a healthy number from Iran, Persian and Kurdish Jews. So his (Amadenijad's) pretense that the middle east was somehow ethnically pure before the European Jews immigrated during WWII is patently false.

However, during the Holocaust it became plain that the Jews needed somewhere to escape but all doors were closed to them. When the British limited immigration into Israel during the war, they took on responsibility for Jewish deaths. When the Arabs complained that too many Jews were immigrating to Israel, they too took on responsibility for Jewish deaths. That is why the Zionist Jews in Israel decided that it was important to be able to have their own state with their own immigration laws, rather than be dependent on others, the British, the Arabs, whomever. In fact it was a question of life or death for Jews. That is why Holocaust survivors were among those who fought (and died) in 1948 for the privilege of keeping the state that they were offered by the UN. The reality is that the Arabs fought against Israel time and time again and are fighting today to destroy the Jewish presence in the middle east. The Jewish State must remain Jewish so that there is always one place that Jews can know that there will be a government that is there for them. Arabs, including Palestinians, have multiple countries that would take them in and that share their ethnicity and religion and will act as protectors for them. Jews have just one. If that goes, it is the beginning of the end of Jews world-wide. The prejudice and antisemitism will have won out, and a people who have lived and breathed "Next year in Jerusalem" for thousands of years will become a memory. If the Jews had been a bad, immoral people perhaps that would not have been a tragedy, but I believe the Jews are a boon to mankind and that Judaism as a religion, or Jews as a people, is not warlike or offensive to others. I hope that sheds a little light on my feelings at least, and I think those of at least a few others here. Stellarkid (talk) 03:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. And especially fitting the day before Yom HaShoah. Breein1007 (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never Again. Stellarkid (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Would you like me to respond (civilly of course)?     ←   ZScarpia   16:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly , if you feel so moved. Stellarkid (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New image and "hi Stellar" :)

Hi Stellar, please take a look at my new image File:California ground squirrel at Point Lobos.jpg. Best.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stellar :)

See my new funny image File:Pond turtles and mallar duck in Golden Gate park.jpg --Mbz1 (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite amazing! that file name should be "mallard." Golden Gate park is one of my favorite places of all time. Have not been there for many years. Hoping to persuade my significant other that we should visit again soon. Thanks for that nice photo. It made me smile. Stellarkid (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stellar, here's one more of the same File:Pond turtles and mallard duck in Golden Gate park 1.jpg, when the duck wanted to say "hi", but the turtle was not happy :)--Mbz1 (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Jewish Nobel laureates/archive1

Please note that the FLC discussion concerns whether the list meets the FL criteria, and FL status does not rest on the "notability" of the subject. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TEDIOUS and WP:NOR Editorials at United Nations Security Council Resolution 478

There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict Wikipedia:Be bold. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information.

You've also included an unpublished synthesis of material that contained an analysis which did not appear in the sources that you cited. harlan (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Indeed you have described your own work in the article to a "T". But you removed material that was meant as a compromise. I will go check the material that you called an unpublished synthesis but all the material you have put up is an unpublished synthesis. The business about 2 illegal decisions being part of the resolution is simply false. One needs only to read the resolution to realize that. The material about the wall, while it may reference this article is not part of a description of the resolution and is simply tedious legalese meant to push a particular POV. There need be no argument if merely remove anything which does not describe the resolution and the "reception" of the resolution. Simply because something is sourced does not mean it is relevant. Stellarkid (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for continuously fixing my broken English, honestly appreciate it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution 194

Hi, you were wondering how the infobox/template could be modified on this page. Sean mentioned that templates can be problematic and I agree with him, however one idea could be to have a separate UN resolution template, where the issues could be mentioned. Res 194 doesn't only deal with the refugees, after all. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dailycare, thanks for bringing this up again. Looking at the template more carefully, since I didn't really understand how that worked, I see that the whole template is one piece, the "Nabka " template. I wouldn't think of modifying it since it is not my area of expertise, however I think it entirely inappropriate on this page. I just made a note on the talk page. My thinking would be to remove it altogether until and unless there is a separete UN resolution template or maybe one with use the IP conflict UN resolutions or some such. What do you think? Stellarkid (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, creating a new template from scratch is a bit beyond my technical skills. I found this one at the Res.242 page and modified it.. the UN site is down right now so the voting record (For/Abs/Against) can't be completed but the other fields should now be correct. Replacing the current box with this one would amount to a substantial deletion, so perhaps it'd be a good idea to take this to the talk page first. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


UN General Assembly
Resolution 194
DateDecember 11 1948
Meeting no.A/PV.186
CodeA/RES/194 (III) (Document)
SubjectPalestinian refugees, Jerusalem
Voting summary
  • 35 voted for
  • 15 voted against
  • 8 abstained
ResultApproved

Nice and pretty box. good job. I will look over the resolution again for any other additions to "subject" matter, but I like it. It is simple and to the point. I put something on IP Collab today, [51] (but I hadn't seen the box yet) and I put something on the talk page maybe a week ago but no reply yet. Stellarkid (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the voting record from the UN site, 35/15/8. --Dailycare (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

For you, Stellar

Copyeditor Barnstar
For fixing my English.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Haven't heard from you in a while. Thought I'd stop by and give you a friendly hello--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Hi Stellar, glad to see you around. Here's my new article Max Frauenthal. Could you please fix English, when and if you have a time? Best.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you

Thanks for responding. You had not been active for some time so I just wondering if everything was okay. In response to your query, there is currently a discussion concerning the Battle of Deir Yassin and possible explanations for resulting civilian casualties. I introduced the this edit[52] that is backed by at least 10 reliable sources but it seems that it doesn’t comport with the party line and so, has sparked a storm of controversy and has been the subject of several reverts. Protection was instituted twice and is due to be lifted on the 13th. The differences have yet to be resolved.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's really an empty victory because he's already established a block history on me making me more vulnerable to other lengthier blocks. I'm beginning to see a disturbing pattern on Wikipedia where editors identified as being "Pro-West" or "Pro-Israel" are being picked off one-by-one. Breein, DrorK, Guy Montak, Moma's little helper, Gilabrand just to name a few. Sickening.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, since my block, there have already been 20 edits to Deir Yassin, made by 4 like-minded "editors" while we are forced to sit passively on the sidelines watching yet another article degenerate into cheap propaganda. Sigh--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow missed these posts when you made them. But I see what you mean. Stellarkid (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might be interested

See here. Cheers. IronDuke 00:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

israel and apartheid

with respect to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy - I've just taken over the mediation, and if you'd like to participate, could you please sign onto the mediation and make an opening statement in the appropriate sections above, before getting into heavy debate in the discussion section? thanks --Ludwigs2 09:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prior accounts

Have you ever had a prior account on Wikipedia? nableezy - 16:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, why? Stellarkid (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You claim to have voted to delete Israel and the apartheid analogy. However, the last AFD for that article was in June 08, about a year prior to you registering this account. The account that I think was yours did vote to delete during that AFD. Dont worry if this is unlcear, this will all be laid out in the SPI investigation, along with other peculiarities in language and arguments between this account and what I believe is a prior account of yours. Ill be sure to let you know when that is complete. nableezy - 17:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing how much time and effort some people are willing to spend just to get people they don't agree with blocked. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truly. Oh wait, you meant other "some people". nableezy - 18:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
wow... Guys, it's summer: think sunshine, margaritas, lounging on the sand watching the people pass or barbecuing an entire bull in the back yard. there are better things to do than indulge in pointed commentary. --Ludwigs2 19:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have the distinct feeling that some people have filed many more AE, ANI, 3RR and SPI reports against "other some people", where the "other some people" all belong to a particular group. Maybe I'm mistaken though. After all, consistency is the only currency that some people recognize on Wikipedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can show where I have made an argument inconsistent with another one that I have made I will do my best to rectify that. It would surprise me if you were able to do that though. And most people recognize that removing sockpuppets from Wikipedia is what we should be doing. But no time for this, time for some people to get to work on another SPI report. nableezy - 19:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many SPI reports have you filed against pro-Palestinian editors? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many "pro-Palestinian" editors are sockpuppets? And that does not say anything about consistency of an argument. I say sockpuppetry is bad, regardless of which "side" is engaging in it. I file SPI reports when I feel the standard of evidence to either perform a CU or to issue a block is met. If there are "pro-Palestinian" socks out there I would not be opposed to their being blocked. Sockpuppetry is bad and socks should be blocked, full stop. That is a consistent argument and I have not once made an opposing one. When I notice something I file a report, as I will be doing with this case once I compile the evidence. nableezy - 20:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please continue this battlefield mentality. More evidence is always useful.Cptnono (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with that. nableezy - 20:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it's just a coincidence that you happened to notice, what 10? 15? 30? pro-Israeli socks, but never noticed a single pro-Palestinian one? There's certainly no lack of consistency in the group of editors against whom you file SPI reports, that's for sure. Same goes for AE, ANI and 3RR. Consistency. What a valuable currency. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, just the "pro-Israeli" socks were for the most part incredibly stupid in how they went about socking. If you do the same thing over and over and over again it makes it pretty obvious. And I dont mean "consistency" as policing everybody, but if you say that X pro-I user should not be blocked for something you should not then say that Y pro-P user should be blocked for that same thing. Or if you make a content argument about X source being acceptable if it is pro-I, you should not argue that Y source is unacceptable because it is pro-P. That is the problem that I see with many of the "some people" who do these things. As far as I know I have never made such arguments, but again, if you can find one I will attempt to rectify that (if possible of course). If you wish to continue this back and forth I ask we do it on my talk page or yours, not sure SK appreciates seeing that yellow bar caused by my username. nableezy - 21:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking my own contribs this was my first edit to that article: "If ever an article called out to be deleted this would be it" was what I said in February of this year. Memory played a trick and I said I voted to delete. That was my "!vote." Stellarkid (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine the cheese of this character Nableezy. He’s got the unmitigated gall of accusing anyone who doesn’t share politics of being a sock. Truly despicable behavior.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would link to a recent article in FPM except it may be called outing, but trust me on this: what you call "despicable behavior" or outside of Wiki "Islamofascist POV-pushing" only makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. nableezy - 02:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. I have nothing at all to do with FPM except that I occasionally read it. This is entirely in your imagination. Stellarkid (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was a reply to Jiujitsuguy. nableezy - 13:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More evidence that you are more interested in researching the contributors than you are the content. Stellarkid (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just some more battlefield mentality. You should probably not do that. This reminds me of six months or so ago on this exact page. Feel free to blank it whenever you are sick of it Stellarkid.Cptnono (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didnt I already tell you that what you think does not matter to me? And SK, do feel free to blank whatever you wish. nableezy - 03:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Falsifier:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stellarkid&oldid=372240602"