User talk:Dailycare: Difference between revisions

Hi Dailycare! You commented on the Israel FAR (located here) when it was in the FAR portion of the review. It has since moved to the FARC portion where editors enter keep/delist declarations. Any further comments on the article would be appreciated, as would an opinion on whether the article should be kept at or delisted from FA status. Thanks in advance! Dana boomer (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will politely request that you stop edit warring at Jerusalem. The discussion is ongoing and you are the only editor who has expressed support for the suggested change. Everyone else has attempted to explain to you why your suggested change does not make sense. Continuing to edit war without reaching consensus for your change will be considered disruptive editing, and you may face the consequences if this happens. Breein1007 (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you provide diffs for any edits of mine which you consider to be edit warring? --Dailycare (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That phrase is kind of a cliché of cheap action movies, where the hero is pushed one step too far and then exclaims "No more Mr. nice guy!" as he prepares to take the bad guys down... AnonMoos (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know that. Still, it sounds a bit confrontational. --Dailycare (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the lead without reading the current discussion in the talk page. Please feel free to join the discussion about mentioning international reaction in the lead. I'm removing your changes until a consensus is formed. Zuchinni one (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dailycare,

In your recent edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=367590380&oldid=367587067

You say that you want to include the definition of martyr for those people who might not know. While that is a laudable goal, your edit seems to be more about removing information than including it.

You again removed that information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=367590563&oldid=367590380

And you reverted the more NPOV word "condemnation" to "outrage" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=367579623&oldid=367575326 With the reasoning that RS are using that term. However RS are also using the term condemnation. Since wikipedia needs to remain NPOV we should be using the less POV term. There have also been discussions about this that you have taken part in, and no consensus was reached.

While I may personally agree with some of the edits you've made, the bottom line is that you have already passed the 1RR limit for this article, with the three reversions above. This is not the first time you have done so. And these reversions were not made with the consensus of the discussion page.

Please stop the edit warring. Your opinion is appreciated but it would be better served in the discussion section rather than in reverting edits and leaving comments that are questionable regarding the nature of your edits.

Zuchinni one (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daily,

Thanks for getting back to me. In regards to your comments:

1. My concern here wasn't exactly your edit, but the edit comments which seemed indicate that information was added, when in fact information was removed. This seems to be a problem that recently got worse and I've contacted several people about being more clear.
2. In regards to the "outrage" my concern is that there has been an ongoing discussion in the talk section about precisely this word, since the very first day this article went up. And there isn't really consensus to support a change. Since this was covered in basically every paper in the world there are tons of RS that use many different terms. Outrage and condemnation seemed to be the most common. There were many refs at one point that used condemnation but most of them seem to have been removed. Either way in many of the cases where 'outrage' was used, it was used in reference to outrage over the deaths, not the raid itself. The current wording implies that the outrage was over the raid.
3. In regards to the 1RR, you are allowed to make multiple edits, but you cannot undo or revert other author submissions more than once. The three edits I mentioned earlier are each removal of another authors edits. So you basically have 3RRs right there.

You've made some really thoughtful contributions to the talk page and I hope that you continue to do so.

Cheers, Zuchinni one (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you appellant about Jerusalem as the capital, you can't appellant Jerusalem as part of Israel. All the sister cities of Jerusalem are noted Jerusalem as Israeli city. If you want to edit, you need to bring it to the talk page. --Sipio (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you added: "toward Golan Heights", but the sentence already says "Galilee" which is the land "toward" Golan, so "toward Golan" is repeat and does not need to be mentioned. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you were trying to do. The section is about geography in Israel, not geography in Syria, so Golan shouldn't be mentioned at all. But I just wanted to make you aware that "Galilee" is already mentioned so there is really no need for any mention of land "towards Golan" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother here, but as you are a contributor to certain discussions at the List of sovereign states I would like to show you the recently compiled list of all proposals for sorting criteria so that you can express your opinion here. Thanks! Alinor (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and Ill make a post there. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what next step you may recommend for dispute resolution. Certain editors there don't seem to respect the outside opinions garnered from the RfC process. I would like to keep to processes which are article-related, but unfortunately, the behavior at the talk page is as much of a problem (for example, see: this), leading me to the conclusion that an RFC/USER might be a more definitive way to improve productivity at that article. I hate to focus on editors instead of content, but, at the heart of it, tendentiousness seems to be the actual problem. What did you have in mind, though? BigK HeX (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly plenty of evidence of a few editors disregarding overwhelming outside opinion, as I assume that you've seen. We've tried to get informal mediation, but that's languished unaccepted for over a month. As much as I hate bringing editors up for individual scrutiny, I think I'll have to bite the bullet, and just pursue it, in the interests of stopping the endless WP:IDHT. Thanks for the input! BigK HeX (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed your AE filing. The consensus was to warn and proceed under SPI, SPI will handle as warranted. --WGFinley (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is going to be issues if you don't use the talk page. Would you mind making a comment over there?Cptnono (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal to change the layout and sorting criteria of the article List of sovereign states has been finalised and submitted for consensus.

As you were previously involved in the discussion for this change, I thought I would inform you of the final proposal. Please provide comments here. Nightw 13:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dailycare, hope this message finds you well. Following a request at WP:3O and per the conversation I have had with Tempered here, I would be grateful if you could fill in the section or comment at Talk:Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Statement_by_Dailycare. Many thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you correctly guessed, I am dying to respond to your comments. But I will hold back, because the essay you linked to made some interesting points that I need to think about. Having said that, i'd be grateful for your views on a broader point coming from this, as you are one of the few editors on I/P issues who IMHO appears to get the very difficult NPOV balance pretty spot on. My question is that since I/P issues are clearly susceptible to behaviour detailed in another essay topic - WP:TAGTEAM - what are editors who think tag-teaming is wrong supposed to do to counter such behaviour and reach NPOV if anything approaching WP:BLUDGEON is out? I can't think of any other antidotes to tagteaming. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to respond. My thoughts below:

• I think a solution to tag-teaming hasn't been found - the opposing positions in the tag-team essay deletion discussion are very interesting. However it is undisputed that the tag teams can build their own consensus via WP:NINJA editing, circular or illogical argumentation and a continual ignoring of points, and that this works particularly well in debates with the impossible to define WP:UNDUE and WP:ROC policies at their core
• I personally think it is not possible to expose a tag-team without infiltration - hence I have never made such accusations. My concern with your infiltration idea (which should definitely be considered) is that often there is no need for tag teamers to formally coordinate - each members' (e.g. nationalistic) goals can often be understood perfectly without discussion
• I agree that RfC can be used in certain cases, but on high profile articles like Israel which has over 1000 watchers[1], I think the chances of ever getting the tag team in the minority are very low

If the only way to counter such behaviour is to create an equivalent tag-team, to fight fire with fire so to speak, then I will drop from WP as I didn't join to play a game or win a war (not that you in any way suggested that - it's just my concern that WP might be going that way). What I have been trying to work out is whether the correct way to counter tag-teaming editors who use gaming tactics and/or "circular or illogical argumentation and a continual ignoring of points" is simply to expose them. In other words whilst as you rightly say it is impossible to convince those editors, it might be possible to embarrass or undermine them so that it is more difficult for them to repeat such tactics with credibility going forward. Do you think that is too idealistic, and do you think it is possible to achieve this without tripping the WP:BLUDGEON guidance? Oncenawhile (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say thanks for your response - it's helpful to discuss difficult topics like this once in a while. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.

Your comment here is true. In fact, this is mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Why have you removed mention of the early Jewish connection to the city, leaving only the Muslim connection statring in 638? Chesdovi (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

we are stay here forever !!! with or whitout usa. פארוק (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Asinthior and I will be your mediator. I have no prior knowledge of Israel and the Apartheid Analogy, which I think is a good thing as I will be able to provide a pair of fresh eyes and I won't have any prejudice on the matter. I hope we can all actively participate in the solution of this dispute. Feel free to leave a note at my talk page at any time. I will be available through the weekend. Asinthior (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please transfer the discussion to the Mediation Cabal case page? In other words, all further comments concerning this dispute and how to insert the controversial paragraph into the article should be done at case page until we close the case. If you agree, please state so in the discussion section of the case page. Asinthior (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the subsection of the discussion page for the article in dispute. As the Mediation Cabal did not have an immediate response, I feel the debate have moved to a new topic. I would ask all concerned parties to make a very short statement trying to define as narrowly as possible what is the topic of the dispute and what would be the expected outcome. Please do this in the discussion section of this page. Asinthior (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My dear friend !. You should not have to be anti-Semitic. Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people forever . You can not read that another person he hates Jews and hates Israel - a disgrace to say ! To say that Mount Scopus + Mount of Olives is not a Jewish area more than 3,000 years - that people are talking like that is itself anti-Semitic. Mount Scopus will never be an arab land. Like that London will never be sold for Saudi Arabia. i'm sorry - you don't know the real history of the Great Arab Lie. פארוק (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been exactly one month since User:Tempered last contributed to WP. I think you can go ahead and do the edits you were disputing about. If he comes back and still has a problem, we can mediate then. Just throw me a line at my talk page. Asinthior ^(talk) 16:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you live here in Israel - So that you knows what every Israeli feels in everyday life. " Obama " also lives in Israel and know what every Israeli feels !!!!! . פארוק (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dailycare. You wrote at the talk page for Gaza flotilla raid that you didn't have time to review Reneem's edits. Your comment also left me with the impression that you thought that someone else should or could do so. But Reneem has now spent spent 3 and 1/2 hours rewriting the article to a pro-IDF perspective, and reviewing his changes would be a monumental task.

Along with Marokwitz, you objected to the revert I made for that reason. But I believe it would take a determined editor at least three times as long - a solid ten hours - to evaluate Reneem's rewrite by trying to step through the 17+ diffs and make sense of them. Without having the benefit of knowing what his (procedural) intention was for any given subset of saved edits, and with no edit summaries, it would be a huge undertaking. I don't have the time to do that, any more than you do, and I don't think its reasonable to expect that anyone who follows the article does.

That's why I reverted, his extremely "bold" edit series. I'd hoped he'd "discuss", but after Marokwitz immediately reinstated, Reneem went on to add another two hours of consecutive edits. I'd be grateful if you'd review my subsequent comments subsequent to yours in the talk page section ( livelink/snapshot ). If you'd like to reply, could you possibly do so the article talk page? I need to put my watchlist on a diet, with all the individual user-talk pages it has on it already. Many thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inviting everyone who contributed to the previous discussion to weigh in (again) at Talk:Luther (disambiguation). Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'm looking to de-redlink this template and I wonder if you could assist me with your valued opinion and shared knowledge on these questions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#1985_PLO_ships_bombing Shoplifter (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

recently I reciever a lot of anti-Semitic messages. mainly by Arabs on every sentence I write about Jerusalem. I just want to say from a Jew to Christian, he lived in Europe and did not know what it means to live in Israel. "Jerusalem is the forever capital of the Jewish people" and it does not matter if it Palestine or Israel. thank you ! . פארוק (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the revert without explanation. You added a figure reportedly given by Mansour, but it deviates from the official figure given by the PLO. Mansour is also unreliable when it comes to giving figures: in the past month alone, he's given 130, 131 and 139, and not in that order. At the very least, since it deviates from the official figure, I'd like to move it to the section discussing confusion in numbers. Thanks for your time and sorry again, Nightw 02:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are misreading the situation. it is YOU who has made a bold edit, to something that was in the article for eight years. Five editors have reverted your change, not a single one has supported your change. The "previous version" is the one that has been here for years, not your recent addition. Jeff Song (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the result of your 3RR complaint at WP:AN3#User:Jeff Song reported by User:Dailycare (Result: Both warned). EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you wrote "Besides, in the occupied areas Arabs can't ride the same bus as Jews, and can't vote" - arabs can ride the same bus as jews in the 'occupied areas' (it was just proven again this past week when 6 people did it). and they can vote. they do not vote in israel since they are not israeli citizens, but many hold jordanian citizenship and work it out there. Soosim (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dailycare. You have new messages at Talk:Palestinian people#Request for comment on lede statements.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just tired of wasting too much time on these silly issues. Thank you for taking the time to fix it. Wish I had thought of that idea - checking the article for sources that already mention this. It's completely illogical to require sources for this since it's common knowledge... And any first-hand source will by definition not be a "reliable source". So thank you for solving it! --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've put up a proposal re: Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Naming_Conventions_for_Locations_in_Jerusalem) and would very much appreciate any comments you have on this issue. BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dailycare. Being banned from wikIPedia for 6 months I can't comment in Talk... Never the less

Anonmoos ought be reminded that it was six months after the Arab States rejected UNGA res 181, the Jewish People's Council made the final, official, acceptance of the partition plan by declaring the Establishment of the State of Israel enshrining UNGA res 181 in that declaration.

Being a non-binding resolution, there was no clause or article in UNGA Res 181 requiring the parties to co-sign or agree. Nor could there have been. Declaring independence is by it's very nature a completely unilateral concept. Either party could accept or reject. The Jewish People's Council accepted, without registering any official reservation. In doing so, Israel agreed (in fact declared) that Jerusalem was not Israeli and that whatever remained of Palestine was not Israeli

As corpus separatum was never instituted, Jerusalem has never been legally separated from Palestine.

• S/RES/465 (1980) 1 March 1980 Secondary Source

"Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem

Deeply concerned over the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing that settlement policy in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem ... "Primary Source

• S/RES/476 (1980) 30 June 1980 Secondary Source

"1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;"Primary Source

• Of course Anonmoos's argument falls apart all by itself, as does all propaganda. If the Arab rejection rendered UNGA res 181 null and void, then corpus separatum was never instituted and Jerusalem was never legally separated from Palestine ... talknic (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC) talknic (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dailycare, the report in question is the "Index of Failed States 2011" published by Foreign Policy magazine in collaboration with the Fund for Peace. By themselves alone, they would not have enough weight to be carried into a country article, but if you read the discussion above, you will find that there is significant independent coverage of the report itself by reliable sources. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the addendum. I have added comments under extended discussion. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 21:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Dailycare. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do not typically use "patient" but rather "person with X" Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You left me with no choice. I am sorry that it had to come to this [2]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]