User talk:Shuki: Difference between revisions

WP:AE#Shuki. nableezy - 00:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of the message I left here: It is acceptable to critically engage the statements and opinions of others if a professional tone is employed; "bogus argument", however, is already too confrontational in my opinion. But it is certainly not acceptable to attack people themselves by claiming that they "lie". Please do not do this again, or you may be made subject to discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  09:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should have noted that it was Nableezy claiming about 'bogus arguments', not me. --Shuki (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here. I tried to find the original evidence in Hebrew of a Channel 2 expose on the incident that blew this up in the first place, but I don't know Hebrew. Also, I'm not familiar with the full progress of events, so the article looks muddled. The article needs help (as the controversy is gradually developing into an influential series of events), so if you know anyone in Israel who is familiar with the case and knows both Hebrew and English, this article could use their input. Shalom and thanks, --Toussaint (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC) PS: You might want to archive your older talk page's posts, at least to make it more readable for newer messages. You could try {{archive talk collapsible}} --Toussaint (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Shuki, Is there written policy regarding cats and super cats? Thanks, NickCT (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CAT --Shuki (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for something that addressing labeling articles with both a category and its super category. I can't seem to see anything address this particular issue on WP:CAT. Do you? Can you point to it? Thanks, NickCT (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try here as well Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories. Perhaps start a discussion. I took part unofficially there in my early days with organizing and cleaning up parent cats and subcats. Just seems common sense to not have that redundancy, and was not tolerated. W/R specifically to the settlement articles, I think that sorting them based on religious observance was a way to clean the main cat and adding additional information at the same time. In this case, your edit and DailyCare's unfortunate kneejerk reaction instead of joining the discussion, means that Ariel is in two directly related settlement cats. --Shuki (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no general policy that I know of, but WP:MILMOS#SPECIFIC and the section immediately following are what I tend to go with. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 20:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrensath - Yes WP:MILMOS#SPECIFIC is exactly what I was looking for. It speaks to the issue very clearly.

@Shuki - I find myself overruled by policy. I withdraw my initial objection. NickCT (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the talkpage. 21:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed that you have been doing a fair amount of reverting of my work. Please read Help:Reverting - especially "reverting good-faith actions of other editors (as opposed to vandalism) is considered disruptive when done to excess, and can even lead to the reverter being blocked from editing."

A more appropriate approach when faced with editing you don't agree with, is to open a discussion first. We'll deal with the Organ donation in Israel situation first, and you can explain to me why you feel that an article which is about organ transplants should be called Organ donation, and then look at the other articles where you disagree with the edits. We'll forget about the reverting, and concentrate on the issues themselves; though please do bear in mind in future that reverting is an inappropriate action unless dealing with obvious vandalism. SilkTork *^YES! 22:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have a notice about keeping discussion in one place. I don't tend to watch people's talkpages. If you wish to leave me a message, my talkpage is the best place. What I tend to do to keep conversations together is to cut and paste the original notice and my response. Though if we are to stick with the issues, then the talkpages of the articles are the best places to hold these discussions, starting at Talk:Organ donation in Israel. SilkTork *^YES! 22:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, a reasonable (and certainly experienced) editor would admit that they were bold and graciously accept that someone has challenged their editing, not go and try to educate others about how to challenge their edits. The most appropriate approach would have been to start a discussion in the first place. Second, I will AGF your notice to disrespect my talk-page request. --Shuki (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki, if you object to edits solely because of a lack of an official "prior permission" discussion, then why didn't you start a discussion? I see that you've reverted what I think is a perfectly reasonable merge of several short articles into Organ donation. Your edit summary gave no reason for your opposition beyond an anti-WP:BOLD complaint. Which of the several affected pages would you like to start the discussion on? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to write a neutral article on tourism in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip both today and historically using reliable sources. I'd hoped to be able to write the article without disputes about politics; silly me. The "Palestinian territories" are the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Israelis settlements in those areas are in the Palestinian territories, even if they're not governed by the Palestinian authorities. An article on tourism to the West Bank and Gaza would be whitewashed if it didn't mention tourism to Israeli settlements, just as an article about tourism in Israel would be whitewashed if it didn't mention tourism to settlements in the occupied territories. It'd be good if you'd help expand the article, there's lots more sources out there. Fences&Windows 00:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Thanks for fixing that note about the pollution, I slipped up there. Fences&Windows 00:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling all of the WB and Gaza Palestinian territories is a POV viewpoint. Negotiations are underway, there is no final status, there are Area A, B, and C, C clearly not Palestinian territory, and please don't claim objectiveness if you object to that. --Shuki (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ive given you multiple sources that make clear that Area C is occupied Palestinian territory. You have yet to provide a single source that says otherwise. nableezy - 00:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, so what? The vast majority of sources do not say this, you have merely managed to find those that do, and there is no shortage of them. Your argument is not convincing and based on OR and presenting GHITS. You will not find too many sources saying explicitly that Area C is not occupied. And if we did, they would be challenged as RS. Do you want me me to find articles that do not equate area c with Palestinian territory? All they say is Area C with nothing about occupation. --Shuki (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When quality sources specifically say that Area C is occupied Palestinian territory it is not, by definition, OR to say that that Area C is occupied Palestinian territory. And where you are getting "GHITS" in this discussion is beyond me. And the what in your initial question is that if you cannot present a source that disputes the quality sources I have provided you then your position, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it meaningless. I can find a ton of sources saying "Area C" is occupied. Here is a small collection, not including the ones already provided to you:

• Isaac, Jad; Rizik, Majed (30 November 2002), "The Viability of the Palestinian State and Israel's Settlement Policy", Palestine - Israel Journal of Politics, Economics, and Culture, 9 (4), Middle East Publications: p. 76 {{citation}}: |page= has extra text (help) - The interim agreement divided Palestinian land into areas A, B and C
• Shah, Samira (Fall 1997), "On the Road to Apartheid: The Bypass Network in the West Bank", Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Columbia University - While Oslo II transfers a limited amount of authority over the West Bank and Gaza Strip from Israel to the Palestinian Council, it does not remove Israel from its position as occupier of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Oslo II divides the West Bank into Areas A, B, and C which respectively constitute approximately 3%, 24%, and 73% of the West Bank. The agreement transfers "all civil powers and duties" in Areas A and B to the Palestinian Council during the first phase of redeployment. In addition, Oslo II transfers police powers from the Israeli military to the Palestinian Authority in Area A. Since Israel retains the responsibility for the security of settlers and Israelis in all areas of the West Bank, it does not abdicate full authority over Area A. In Area B, Israel still maintains police and security responsibilities. Israel retains its full civil, police, and security authority over Area C.
• Dajani, Omar (Fall, 1997), "Stalled Between Seasons: The International Legal Status of Palestine During the Interim Period", Denver Journal of International Law and Policy (26), Denver University {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) - Area C encompasses the vast majority of the OPT

Many more can be provided. You have yet to provide a single source that say that Area C is not Palestinian territory. So when you say that it is not you are the one engaged in OR as there are no sources backing such a statement. nableezy - 17:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that RS can be POV as well, right? The three sources you brought might be RS, but they are still POV. RS does not mean 'objective'. There's no point in bringing you one source that says that the West Bank is not occupied Palestinian Territory, (there are many many) because you don't care anyways, and I know, that nothing I say will convince you otherwise. And it is very OR to claim 'most of the sources' and stuff like that. --Shuki (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is a point. Bring some sources that say Area C is not Palestinian territory and I'll take your argument seriously, if they are of comparable quality to the sources I have provided (peer-reviewed, published by academic presses). And I have not said "most of the sources", what I have said is that I have provided sources when you have provided nothing but your own personal view. nableezy - 21:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, anything counter-Nableezy is hasbara anyway. You like arguing more than you like contributing real information. Compare my edit history to yours. Most of my edits are on articles, most of yours are on talk pages. --Shuki (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my edits are on talk pages because certain users refuse to accept what high quality sources say and instead demand that their own personal viewpoints be presented as gospel truth to the exclusion of that the sources actually say, so I have to spend a great deal of my time dealing with such nonsense (sort of like right now). I provide sources, you provide unsourced opinion. I have given you a number of sources that flat out say that Area C is Palestinian territory, you have yet to provide a single one that refutes that. Guess what? On Wikipedia, sources trump personal opinions and feelings. nableezy - 21:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shuki: Since this is now the time, would it be possible for you to review and add or in any way improve The Nine Days article. Please find more sources as well. Thanks in advance. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally hit the rollback button, didn't mean to revert after your revert. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just edit like reasonable people? I'm sick and tired about the battlefront, and it is because I do have faith in editors that I believe that most are reasonable people who do want to see progress. Not to be condescending to you, but at least I see that you are a contributor on other pages and subjects and do want to add value to WP, as opposed to another editor who is an admittedly negative person. Supporting a position does not mean degrading the other side, but promoting one's side. --Shuki (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE#Shuki nableezy - 19:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]