User talk:WarKosign/Archive 1

I'm not following this

I had a pretty good talk, with a number of editors and -- while they have raised a bit of title-relating concern, they did not protest and, best I can tell, you did not protest it as well. So, why not let a version of the first paragraph that is sitting nicely on another longer standing article sit nicely on this article as well?[1] Did you make any talk page comment about it? There is something about reverting that is not nice, and I haven't seen you object on the talk page. Only others, raising concerns, not full blown objection -- that's why non of them reverted. In short, I hope you reconsider and agree that this version does have a good chance to stand the test of time (as it did on the other article). Let me know. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MarciulionisHOF: As I commented, it was a BOLD edit, to be reverted by someone strongly objecting and then discussed on the talk page. I wrote about my intentions to make the change yesterday, and since nobody responded I took it as silent agreement.

I had a look on ODS's lead, and it looks quite similar in structure: first paragraph is operation's name and stated goal, second paragraph is summary of the action and then there is a conclusion that we currently lack.

"Operation Protective Edge" is not the article's title, and there is no point pretending it is. Insisting to have appear first only resulted in awkward first sentence. It still appears in bold at the beginning of the article. If this name will be the one used by many sources, it would make sense to raise the issue of changing the name of the article again. WarKosign (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the case with the Defensive Shield article? Is it really different than Protective Edge? My suggestion is to go with versions that lasted the test of time. Not to revert back to weird versions that nobody's happy with on an encyclopedic level. I mean -- are there a lot of articles where the title is written in that funny way you reverted to? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MarciulionisHOF: See this. Even if the article title does change back toe OPE, I think the way it's written now is clearer. I do not feel very strongly about it, raise the issue on the article's talk page - I will not object to the change. WarKosign (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already raised in on talk before making the change. I will link to your note of acceptance in returning the text. Hopefully, no one will try to prosecute me over it -- it seems I've been marked as a target lately. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MarciulionisHOF: I think it would be best for you to tune down your style on the talk page. I agree with most of what you have to say, but there are more civil ways to say that, and perhaps then people would react more to what you have to say rather than getting annoyed with how you say it. WarKosign (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far, I've seen some pretty horrible stuff on the talk page. Will anyone say something about foruming (whatever that means) to a few of the "Israel-illegal"..."IDF unreliable"..."USA unrelated"..."Hamas politicians/PR-department are not Hamas" publicists (Hebrew word, sadly, no direct translation). Geez. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MarciulionisHOF: IMO, an article on such a subject divides editors into 3 types:

Those who don't care one way or the other, but want to use the most correct sources for Wikipedia to best represent all the existing viewpoints.
Those who have an opinion which viewpoint is true, but understand that other viewpoints exist. They will argue their position but will be convinced when the other side presents a reasonable argument.
Those who try to force their viewpoints at any cost, even when it may be factually incorrect.

1 is the best, 2 is tolerable. 3 is not accepted behaviour for an editor. You do not want people to think you are #3. If you have opinions, you should state them politely, show respect to (reasonable) opinions of other editors even when you do not agree with them. You need to convince people that you are correct, or at least that you MAY be correct, so your viewpoint should be represented in the article together with the opposing one. #3 gets people into edit warring and blocking. #2 and #1 results in good and balanced articles. Foruming is discussing the operation itself instead of the article. The talk page exists for discussing how to make the article on the "2014 conflict" better and more representing the true. To do it it is acceptable to discuss how you see the facts on the talk page, but always in relation to a change that someone did or you think that should be done on the page. WarKosign (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Gaza conflict

Apart from the serious POV problem you are making by constantly removing and making the number of civilians killed less notable, you have breached the 1RR on 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. If you don't self-revert, expect to be reported. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC) @IRISZOOM: Feel free to report, along with your own edit warring. WarKosign (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE report

I have filed a report at WP:AE regarding your actions. See this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hamas claim

i don't know how old you are or what level of education you reached and i don't want to know , but you really have a problem of understanding arguments for reasons i really cannot understand,tell me is it language barriers or is it an emotional one.

listen , i know you hate Hamas as much as i hate IDF , cut the crap we both know that, but listen dude : you have to use your mind brother or should i say cousin .

i am not saying Hamas claim is reliable or not or even the IDF's claim is reliable or not, but a claim is a claim . if i mentioned the figure 1000 as a given fact then you have the right to be mad , but i did not do that . i just said it is Hamas claim.

you can not possibly omit Hamas figures because they are one of the two sides of the warBig textBig text, seriously i told you a hundred times if you don't want Hamas references then change the title to ISRAEL NARRATIVE OF THE 2014 GAZA CONFLICT.

I DO BELIEVE THAT NEXT STEP SHOULD BE ADMINISTARTORS INTERVENTION.SORRY MANZaid almasri (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC) Zaid almasri (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]