User talk:Jayjg/Archive 9: Difference between revisions

If you have something to say, please take it to the relevant article Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)

I will never trust any edit of yours for any reason. I would call your edits "POV garbage" as much as any other that would occur. Are only Jews like Michael Savage allowed to be racist? G-d forbid the Whitey would say such things about Jews, but hey, Jews suffer too much! Tell that to the Palestinians who have their homes flattened by Israeli-driven, American Caterpillar tractors. This unpopular coup d'etat by the Neocons will not last forever. Relax and leave me alone. I know that it isn't about me specifically, but what you bring to Wikipedia against anybody and everybody who you disagree with unless they follow your lead. TheUnforgiven 8 July 2005 20:59 (UTC)

I have removed a plethora of personal attacks and threats from the above post. See [3] Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 21:06 (UTC)

But you see, I don't remove the lies your friend puts even if it hurts, because I am a real man! On contrast, I see you extricating the truth because you can't bear to mature! TheUnforgiven 8 July 2005 21:12 (UTC)

Lookie lookie at the big bad Jewies! They think they can gang up and persecute me! TheUnforgiven 8 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)

I suggest you relax, WP:NPA is Wikipedia policy, and Wikipedia is not a soap box. El_C 8 July 2005 21:51 (UTC)

Tell that to Jayjg. Why does he need to force his presence onto each and every article that may have subject related to his ethnicity and religion? I will always explain myself on Talk Pages. I don't abuse the reader by controlling the article, as Jayjg does. Explain much? TheUnforgiven 8 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)

Sorry the above is the correct link. Falphin 8 July 2005 21:46 (UTC)

No definition is "not encyclopedic"

Jayjg m (rv:That was highly POV, and not encyclopedic)

A definition that claims there is no definition is of no help to anyone. Jayjg, if you have a problem with part of my article, change it, but don't revert it to a non-definition. Terrorism has to be defined as something. Does anyone have a problem with terrorism involving terror? Of course not. So you can at least define Terrorism as something and go from there. When someone takes the time to turn a cop-out non-definition into something that is usefull to a researcher, at least show him the respect to keep the parts you like. I am going to post my introduction to Terrorism in Discussion and I would like to know specifically which parts you have problems with. If you cannot answer that, so we can edit it together and make something everyone can be happy with, your revert must be considered nothing but a hostile edit.

Saying that nobody agrees on a definition is not an acceptable encylopedia entry. If you choose not to critique the intro in the Terrorism Discussions, please refrain from reverting it when I post it to the article.

Please use the relevant article Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)

Hi Jayjy,

You've edited my inputs a few times now. I was thinking, maybe its time to get acquainted!

The latest change was removal of an entry into the Palestine article. (It's a lively locale, isn't it?) OK, here is the text:

The original Philistines, also referred to as the Sea People, were a group of Aegean people who settled along the eastern coast of Mediteranean (from east of the Nile up to about the location of modern day Ashdod) during the 12th century BCE. The Hebrew Bible recounts at length the dealings between the Israelites and the Philistines. The connection between the Sea People and the present day Palestinians is a subject of some conjecture. Although modern day Palestinians claim descent from these early inhabitants, some scholars maintain that the original Philistines were absorbed into the Israelites before arrival of the Romans.

In truth, I can't fault you for removing the text if you thought it was unsourced. The fact is, there has already been some discussion on the Talk page associated with the article, where Kurotowsky's Ghost (hope I got that name right) was able to produce one reference for the story about the Sea People. Please see the discussion there. I also remember reading about it in a book by Chaim Potok called Wanderings.

About the Palestinian claim to descendency from this group: I can reference my own conversations with Palestinians. If I'm not mistaken, it is also taught in Palestinian school books. I understand that not everyone is satisfied with this claim. But given the changes over so many centuries, that's not too surprising. I judged the claim at least possible, and I thought I had been diligent in mentioning these doubts.

Given the emotion the subject engenders, I feel it important to be explict about what I am and not out to do. I wish neither to provide support nor challenge anybody's claim to a state. What I wanted instead, was to add a perspective to an section entitled Origins , which people interested in history might enjoy reading about.

I hope you might reconsider your deletion.

Peace. --Philopedia 8 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)

Please comment on the relevant Talk: page so all can participate in the discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 22:32 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg,

That's a good suggestion, but I'm going to pass on it. In the meanwhile my entry has been editted beyond recognition.

I'll make a confession: Beside the genuine wish to contribute, I was curious to watch the community reaction. (Not that I was deliberately provocative.) I am new to the Wikiworld and I am still trying to understand how and why it is able to function.

I'm learning that under the right conditions the Wiki paradigm is surprisingly effective. Certainly, community engagement and knowledge are important for success (and you'll find these in plenty in the projects you are working on). But it appears to be just as crucial that participants exercise discipline in order to maintain psychological distance to the subject. Distance then allows contributors to view ideas (including their own) with critical objectivity.

I'm finished experimenting with lightning rods so I'll let the matter be. But I did feel that your suggestion deserved an answer. Besides, you are an administrator, so maybe some of this could be useful to you when it comes to setting the tone when moderating community projects.

Peace, --Philopedia 16:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least. He seems to be purposely avoiding violating the 3RR rule, but his behavior is trollish, and on the verge of vandalism. Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 22:37 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to call him a troll, but Jayjg definitely has bigoted opinions and will not allow any version of reality to survive that threatens his own, regardless of how much proof there is for it. Unless he starts working with other members, it may be time to take him down a notch. --Zephram Stark 8 July 2005 23:08 (UTC)

Jayjg has already proven that is only willing to work with non-Goy/Gentiles(Jews). TheUnforgiven 21:21, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah.. reverting your POV edits is vandalism ... :)--Witkacy 14:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop him -- he's playing revert war in Sahaba and Ali ibn Abu Talib. He's surely violated the 3RR rule -- and I can't revert him any more, or I'll violate it too! Zora 8 July 2005 23:08 (UTC)

I've begun a formal RfC dealing with Lapsed Pacifist's continued insistence that such persons as Billie Holliday, Alice Walker, Alex Haley, etc. are Irish-Americans. Given LP's response to your query on the article talk page, I thought it best to let you know and give you a chance to comment. —chris.lawson (talk) 9 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)

I'm still in Israel but have limited access to the Internet. I'll be fully back on the July 14. Neutrality^talk July 9, 2005 08:07 (UTC)

... I'd be eager to hear your comments here.

Thanks for all your help on the Sahaba article. BrandonYusufToropov 9 July 2005 10:46 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote - it's good to have your support and I'm grateful for your discussion on the proposal I made. I'm going to give it some further thought and come up with some new ideas - would you like me to let you know here when I post it? Talrias (t | e | c) 9 July 2005 13:12 (UTC)

Hiya,

you recently voted to merge per Uncle G at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses

however, that VfD concerned only the verses from Matthew 1, wheras Uncle G's proposal covered a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to make a similar vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

~~~~ 9 July 2005 15:22 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you in the delete discussions for some other small religious groups so I thought I'd ask if you knew of these people. I put the article up for deletion because the sources listed by the author don't seem to be related.. I also searched on google and did a google print search and found nothing talking about Jonadabs in any kind of depth, they only seemed to list synonyms. I don't want to unwarrantedly delete an article but it seems that Jonadabs is either unnotable or not what the author says. I don't tend toward deletionism but this article has bothered me with how the primary author has acted and the bad references and the lack of verifiable information. If you can please comment on this for me. gren 05:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, after Zora's rewrite it is much better than it was. I changed my vote to a merge. Thanks for the response :) gren 06:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, Jay. I should be back from a brief wikiholiday sometime around the 11th. --Viriditas | Talk 05:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would you be so kind as to block this vandal? I can only describe his edits as lunacy. Thanks, HKT 07:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now I can finally log off. :-) HKT 07:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayjg,

Do you by chance know if it is possible to change the name of an account?--Josiah 14:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[4] what's your problem with that article?--Witkacy 14:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Over a month ago, I had noticed that one of the first things that the Polish notice board discussed after its debut - was me! See here, where some genius first came up with the idea to associate me that German nationalist group. The jibe was well received and drew a hearty laugh from "some editor(s)" (I'm sure you can guess who). HKT 16:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some research, it seems that this German nationalist group is very rarely referred to as "HKT." After a google cross-search with "German" and "HKT", only 1 out of the first 40 hits mentioned HKT in that context. As cross-search replacing "HKT" with "Hakata" drew several hits even on the first page. After more google research (and Wikipedia research) it seems clear that HKT is very rarely used to refer to this group, to the degree that it's usage is non-notable and inappropriate for the disambig page and the wiki article. See Grand Duchy of Poznan (just search the page for the term "Hakata") for another indication that nobody thought of HKT as referring to this group until User:Radomil suggested it as an insult towards my user name. (P.S. Let's see how long it takes for Witkacy to edit the Grand Duchy of Poznan to reflect his desire to insult me). HKT 17:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"My problem with the article was that it was an attempt to harrass User:HKT, following on the heels of your attempts to harrass User:TShilo12"

Could you explain that?... The same article was created on pl wiki in january [5] (did the user on pl wiki, also tried to harrass Tshilo12?...)

• Hmmm... Sneaky, Witkacy. That article never called the group HKT; you made a point of doing so (based on Radomil's jibe). Tsk, tsk.... HKT 18:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and was written in a highly POV way

Highly POV? Please show me the "POV" on my version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=German_Eastern_Marches_Society&oldid=18468928

"German fears of losing Prussian Poland led to the establishment of the "Ostmarkenverein," (Eastern Marches Association) in 1892. Poles called it the H-K-T or "Hakata" (pron.Hahkahtah), because it was headed by three German landowners: Hanneman, Kennemann, and Tiedemann. The Association subsidized German civil servants to make them stay at their posts, and also helped German farmers and landowners. The H-K-T developed a racist ideology, teaching German superiority to the Poles, fostering hatred and contempt of the latter. (The same was true of the attitudes of German-speaking Austrians toward the Czechs and other Slavs of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, e.g. Adolf Hitler). http://raven.cc.ku.edu/~eceurope/hist557/lect6.htm:" --Witkacy 18:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you&co started a personal crusade against me?--Witkacy 18:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Witkacy, he does this to anybody that "infringes" on his precious worldview...eg, non-NPOV. Jayjg, please refrain from trolling Witkacy on the German Eastern Marches Society article. If you follow him anywhere else, I will have an injunction placed on your administrator status. TheUnforgiven 21:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, stop the Spin (public relations) tactics. TheUnforgiven 21:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atheistrabbi (talk · contribs) seems to be gallivanting around doing nothing particularly productive. I'm thinking of asking him to change his userid to User:HitandRunRabbit. Tomer ^TALK 14:57, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

During your brief absence, the industrious Eliezer went right in the middle of a serious, factual debate, when the tide was beginning to turn, to ask admins to delete the page as soon as possible.

It is clear that the deletion page did not meet the "rough concensus" that admins are supposed to try to reach before deleting. Nor should it have been done while the debate was still going on (just minutes after two serious oppose votes). And while the article was being edited - it was quite a good article, and not at all the same article that people voted on. Unfortunately, a couple of ardent sockpuppets gave the defense a bad name, and that is what apparently led the admin to delete without much thought. Too bad.

The article itself is trivial, though it should be undeleted. What is more serious is the precedent, whereby Eliezer finds methods of censoring material he doesn't approve of (and several of his actions today made it perfectly clear exactly why he wanted that article deleted). I urge a lot of vigilance regarding any article that even begins to touch upon Chabad.

In his last edit, Eliezer even removed link brackets from Nosson Slifkin, who clearly deserves a very important article. (Perhaps because his views are not acceptable to Chabad?) I hope a stronger stance will be taken next time. Dovi 15:42, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I find the quick deletion of this article extremely unacceptable. I've put it up for undeletion at [6] - please place a vote for it.--Josiah 03:12, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

You might like to watch over the edits of SimonP - [7]

~~~~ 16:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Vanunu's ethnicity is made obvious by stating he is an Israeli, as he is patently not an Israeli Arab. Terming him a Jew to stress his ethnicity is redundant and misleading, as it could be understood that he is a follower of Judaism.

Lapsed Pacifist 19:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's still confusing, as it's not made clear that he's no longer a Jew. To describe someone as a "former Muslim-Russian engineer" would be similarly confusing. Has this person given up Islam or engineering?

Lapsed Pacifist 19:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be far better.

Lapsed Pacifist 19:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You should check out user 66.216.226.34. It has broken the 3RR on homosexuality five times within the past six days and refuses to cite anything specific on talk page. Now it is resorting to removing any sentence without a footnote citation, if this was done on any other article it would be destroyed. This user has also contacted Tzankai http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tznkai&diff=18579483&oldid=18579426 and is working on causing users to fight one another. You should institute a ban as soon as possible. This user is nothing more than a troll and I bet it's intellectualprop2002's ip address (the user who got caught with phony sources). 67.41.236.211 05:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would merely ask Jayjg to look at the pages in question, and he will see that the above is a rather astounding distortion of what has been going on. 66.216.226.34 06:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message; I've left a comment at the Talk page, and at the user's talk page. It's certainly true that there were faults on both sides, and some of what he's added mught find its way into the article in some form — but as it stands, no, it's much too PoV. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[8]. Maybe you get it. I don't. HKT 18:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My first revert went wrong, I assume because of an edit conflict, and I ended up reverting someone else's revert of what I'd meant to revert (...); when I tried to rectify that, I hit a database error page, and then another conflict, because you'd just reverted the revert that I was trying to undo.

I wrote all that, and I'm not sure tht I understand it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is up with these: Creedmoorer, Thoraziner Chassidism? ARe they supposed to be jokes? --Briangotts 18:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. --Briangotts 19:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Still, hardly encyclopedic. --Briangotts 20:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This chap is certainly on a crusade against kashrut. On kosher (now a redirect again) he tried to prove that because people do not choose knives when trying to commit suicide, knives must be painful to animals. This hair-raising list of non-sequiturs is really too bad for words. I've also IFDed two images he uploaded to make his point. JFW | T@lk 21:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He's also 65.39.86.104 (talk · contribs), responsible for the recent whitewashing vandalism to David Irving. HKT 21:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, I thank you very much for it, as well as for earlier kind comments you have made and perhaps forgotten. Compared to almost anywhere else, Wikipedia is a model of real neutrality and respect for truth on these topics, and that must be greatly credited to the good sense, hard work and integrity of administrators like you. --John Z 07:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you really wanted to include them. I chose South Armagh as it's contiguous with the border with the Republic, but a lot of Derry City would fit in that category also. I fully realise what international law recognises; that the list includes the sedate Kurils and excludes these areas still does not sit easy with me.

Lapsed Pacifist 22:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe i got you wrong, but you seem to have left User:Witkacy and I with the same impression. Whats with comments like "It looks like User:Witkacy is setting himself up for an RfC at a minimum. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 22:35 (UTC), or "Did you notice the Deutscher Ostmarkenverein article recently created by Witkacy? See also HKT and his addition to it. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)", and the insistant removal of Deutscher Ostmarkenverein HKT (which is essentially a poorly formattted Disambig page) ? --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:39, July 12, 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, far from Blindly reverting your edts, I reinserted a piece you removed without valid cause. It seems apparent that it is in fact you who has the Blind revert habbit. Would you like me to link here the number of Blind reverts you have made on me? --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

You've Never Blindly reverted me? What about this then [9], your first edit in an article is to revert me! Indeed, looking back at it, most of your edits on that article have simply been to revert me regardless of what was written! Regarding HKT, it was you who said that HKT was used as an acronym for Deutscher Ostmarkenverein, however while you admitted that it was used you also decided that it was not used enough to warrant inclusion, and thats your opinion, not compatible with NPOV. --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

That was a Blind revert, It reverted to an extremist POV version, thus I can assume a POV you support, which has since been rectified. There was no attempt on your part to edit, to help, only to revert to a Biased and POV loaded article. Regarding HKT, don't think that your Point of View hasn't been noted, it has, but there is more than one opinion here, and if you want to add to that and say that the acronym is disputed, go ahead, I won't stop you. --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:30, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, but could you continue to keep an eye on it for me? It might look strange to oblivious onlookers if they see HKT trying to edit there. They might even think that I'm a German nationalist trying to whitewash the article! In other news, see the edit history at Anti-Semitism in Poland, and the attempts to revert the article to its POV form for the sake of garnering delete votes on the VfD. Thanks, HKT 22:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I created this article based on the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, but I did a substantial edit to make it readable. Your comments and insights would be greatly appreciated. Danny 02:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those goddamn Jews!!! This nonsense seems to never end. The longer I hang around at WP, the more I feel like I'm getting sucked in by Charybdis or like I'm in danger of destruction by Scylla. Tomer ^TALK 05:28, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I think Peter Pilz is a raving lunatic. I think it's pretty pathetic tho, that in an article about Iranian politics, some editors feel it's of paramount importance to mention twice in the same paragraph that he's Jewish. Tomer ^TALK 05:34, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Pilz is fairly prominent in Green politics internationally, which is why I've heard of him. I personally regard most of Green politics to be a mixture of sheer insanity and quasi-pagan antitheism, but that aside, Pilz really takes the cake. He often appears to be particularly radical (read: "lunatic") in an attempt to deflect any Austrian criticisms of his Jewishness (latent anti-Semitism is prevalent in Austria, as is pro-Green sentiment). Tomer ^TALK 05:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. Despite the recent annoyances, I still really enjoy wikiing. Sometimes I need to do something to amuse myself. 14 is actually way low, I just don't feel like filling up the whole page w/ a stupid template that serves little real purpose. Meanwhile, have you looked at my new Template:Camelids? I based it off the template in the Spanish WP. It seems to unnecessarily duplicate (in large part) Category:Camelids, but I like the template a lot better than the category. Tomer ^TALK 05:51, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Now Template:Camelids

Thanks :-) I smirked even, albeit wanly.  :-p Levity is what I need right now...in large quantities. Tomer ^TALK 06:04, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

TheUnforgiven on Palestinians

That's outright vandalism...and completely bizarre vandalism at that. Tomer ^TALK 06:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that :-) Got myself all confused for a moment there... - Ta bu shi da yu 06:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a stupid person making a bad argument weakens the arguments made by other non-stupid people...at any rate, if it's going to be in there, it should at least be a fair gloss of what he said. The "just one bomb would be enough to deal with the problem" is most certainly not what Rafsanjani said at all. What he said was:

[The "imperialist powers"] have supplied vast quantities of weapons of mass destruction and unconventional weapons to Israel. They have permitted it to have them and they have shut their eyes to what is going on. They have nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles and suchlike.

If one day [changes thought] Of course, that is very important. If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality. Of course, you can see that the Americans have kept their eyes peeled and they are carefully looking for even the slightest hint that technological advances are being made by an independent Islamic country. If an independent Islamic country is thinking about acquiring other kinds of weaponry, then they will do their utmost to prevent it from acquiring them. Well, that is something that almost the entire world is discussing right now.

Now, even if that does not happen, they can still inflict greater costs on the imperialists.

So he does mention "even one nuclear bomb" but what he is saying is simply the indisputable fact that it takes a lot less in the way of nuclear weaponry to destroy Israel than it would take to destroy the entire Islamic world. However you want to gloss this, he is not saying what the gloss you reinserted is saying. If you want to put in a fair summary of what he said, I won't be terribly inclined to remove it - a good gloss of the statement would still, I think, unbalance the article, but it is a notable speech and I'd have a hard time just taking it out entirely. But I don't see how we can leave in a completely misleading gloss of what he was actually saying. Reading the speech, I think it's fairly clear that he is neither calling for a nuclear attack on Israel, nor saying that "even one nuclear bomb" would "solve the problem." At the very least, the argument could be made that it is at least as plausible that what he is contemplating is nuclear blackmail, and I tend to think this is a much more plausible reading, in context, of what he is saying. john k 06:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, you seem to have reverted this article four times tonight. Perhaps it's time to cool down and think it over... john k 06:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading what has been posted already, looks like yall need some help. First, yall want a new title. Ok, I have a suggestion: Israeli violence against Arabs, while you can have the Palestinian article Palestinian violence against Israel. Both describe the same thing, except you do not have the loaded terms of terrorism, etc. Though, if the Israeli violence article is towards mostly Palestinians, then it can be renamed to Israeli violence against Palestinians, and create a sub heading for violence against non-Palestinians. What do you think? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Were you referring to an article in particular? Every word in an article can be construed as propaganda. I do not try to bring bias into what I write on the wikipedia, but sometimes slight changes are needed to reflect the truth. Peace, Anthony

Hey Jay, I just messaged you because you're one of the admins on the talk page of this article, and it seems to be being continually vanalised - somebody has added Muhammed Ali to the list, and is in the process of inserting any African-American with a vaguely Irish name onto the list as well, I amingine purely for the sake of vandalism. I think it may be User: Lapsed Pacifist, who is also busy reverting a one-word addition on State Terrorism.illWill 11:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He's baaaack.... at Ahmadinejad. It seems to me, from the style of the edit summaries and the obsessive focus by various IPs on a particular edit, that all these IPs are socks of Mansour (talk · contribs). What's the appropriate procedure for dealing with this fellow? Longer blocks on each IP proxy for every disruption? HKT 15:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Before dismissing "Palestinian territories" as POV, note that:

• the strong longstanding similarities in the situation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank justify (if justification were even needed for a universally used concept) their being grouped together as a single entity;
• mainstream Western media normally call that entity the "Occupied Territories"; however, I assume you, like most supporters of Israel, would regard this as POV (though SlimVirgin seems to think it might be preferable);
• Western sources particularly concerned about neutrality, therefore, use "Palestinian territories" instead, as does Wikipedia;
• and, perhaps most to the point, a discussion on this was already ongoing in Talk:Gaza Strip when you decided to eliminate the term without consultation. - Mustafaa 15:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had the time of my life. It was simply awesome. Neutrality^talk 19:39, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it great to be accused of censorship once in a blue moon? JFW | T@lk 23:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your input on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR concerning the battle of the sockpuppets. I appreciate you taking the time to share your opinion. Samboy 04:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ril has been causing problems at Authentic Matthew. Please help us to resolve.

RIL - M.O.

1) Sock Puppet redirects and hopes nobody notices - Article Gone.

2) SP starts edit war-victim gives up - Article Gone.

3) Later new SP 'merges' and redirects - Article Gone

4) New SP starts edit war - Article Gone

5) If all fails, SP puts up Vfd and makes false statements against his victim often getting THE VICTIM BLOCKED.

PLEASE STUDY THE 'EDIT HISTORY' OF THIS ARTICLE, RIL and 81.156.177.21 for the facts speak for themselves. --Mikefar 05:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the above is one of the numerous sockpuppets of the article's creator - User:Melissadolbeer - see the user's edit history, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer for details. The article in question is Melissadolbeer's original research based on an account by Jerome which is almost universally considered to be an error confusing 3 different gospels (Gospel of the Nazarenes, Gospel of the Hebrews, and Gospel of the Ebionites). It also contains material presenting Eusebius's views of what was Biblical Canon - better discussed at those two articles, and the entire source text of the alleged Gospel, which is otherwise almost universally split into the 3 seperate texts above. The source text was already on WikiSource, and what was salvagable from the remainder of the article was merged to the above 5 articles, and Gospel of Matthew, at the suggestion of User:Wetman. It exists only to support Melissadolbeer's original research thesis. Melissadolbeer's claims of recieving abuse from me, 81.156.177.21, doc, Slrubenstien, Wetman, etc. (whom Melissadolbeer claims to be sockpuppets of one-another) are simply down to the fact that we have at one time or another merged the article elsewhere leaving only a redirect, or have voted to delete it at VFD. The above comment by the sockpuppet has been pasted by it into a vast number of user pages, an act which essentially constitutes excessive disruption to Wikipedia, simply because Melissadolbeer refuses to abide by the process of VFD. ~~~~ 19:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider it a violation at all; I created a new section and worded it specifically to meet your and others' concerns about the region's inclusion.

Lapsed Pacifist 16:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on WP:3RR. This is the first time I've reported someone for violation of the 3RR. I don't suppose my report there could be cleaned up to conform to the standard? — JIP | Talk 16:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How do you modify your signature so that the link to your talk page comes up each time? Is there a way to do it automatically (so that when you do Briangotts 17:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC) the talk link will automatically pop up?) Thanks.[reply]

Thanks!!! --Briangotts 18:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what the problem is. I entered "Briangotts]] [[User Talk:Briangotts|(talk)" as my nickname. As you can see, the link to the talk page doesn't appear. any idea why that might be? --Briangotts (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind it appears to be working now. --Briangotts (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added several,close to 50, Irish-born Irish-Americans, and Lapsed Pacifist reverts to his last edit, which removes all of these actual Irish-Americans so the list will have his African-Americans with little to none Irish ancestry, who are not actual Irish-Americans. 64.109.253.204 18:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some entries under the "evidence of disputed behaviour" that had been inserted by another editor that went beyond the original intent of the RFC. I have ammended the summary of the RFC to list its two specific goals: that SlimVirgin's edit contains too many errors to be reinserted into the article and that she has held herself above any criticism of her edit. There seemed to be a misunderstanding of the scope of the RFC. Hopefully this clarifies. FuelWagon 18:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayjg, at the Dutch language Wikipedia we are just through with intense discussions on naming conventions for Nazi war criminals. The discussion has been decided by the official Dutch language instute in favor of the double ss. At present there is some overflow of this discussion to the English language Wikipedia. I just copied the naming convention that I found relevant to the discussion to the talk pages. See for example Talk:Arthur Seyss-Inquart (and in my edit history). I would appreciate your opinion on this issue. Best regards, gidonb 04:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that I love about Wikipedia is that there is such a variety. For instance, I notice that you seem to have been called pro-zionist and pro-arab in the same week. And which of us would have thought, a year or two ago, that we'd be acting as referees between white nationalists wanting to make disparaging remarks about each other? I think you've already met our latest 'wikipedian with article', Richard Barrett/user:Crosstar. One source called him a "tireless self-promoter." A similar character, Bill White (activist), has battled with him, as has David Duke. Anyway, if you find yourself getting bored with other articles you might add some of the Nationalist Movement's linked articles to your watchlist. They may be active for a while. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:21, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

It's funny. These guys come on strong, but after a bit of opposition (really just neutral editing) they run off. It's tempting to say that the behavior reinforces a stereotype. Ah well, the sociology of Wikipedia. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:25, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, what a piece of work. That "mock trial" is the product of a seriously warped point of view. I couldn't read more than a third and I still have bad taste in my mouth from just that much. I don't think anyone banned him indefinitely, just another admin who was blocking at the same time and got his in a few minutes later with another 24-hour block. He might be back, or he might not. Thanks for keeping an eye out. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:20, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts on Ridged band. There are a few others on which certain people are making frankly unreasonable edits. Take a look at [10].

This is getting ridiculous. - Jakew 11:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hate sites are being repeatedly added by Crosstar to sites on Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner and James Chaney as well as the site on the Mississippi murders. There is one on the Andrew Goodman page I don't know how to remove - it doesn't appear on the edit page though it is on the site. (I've removed it before, however, but as a clueless newbie don't know how to now.)

These pages need to be watched! - JA

See Israeli Terrorism and Zionist Terrorism - you must feel so proud to be a pal and frequent supporter of Guy Montag's <G>. Says more than mere words from us ever could. 62.253.64.15 21:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to take a look at Acetone peroxide (material for a bomb), where there seems to be some users that don't want any refernces to terroists in it. --Eliezer 04:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC) BTW, User:69.112.168.117 that has been making these changes has vandalised User:Hillel earliar see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AHillel&diff=18988775&oldid=17275321 --Eliezer 05:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously 175 people didn't "raise the number of full-time outreach professionals in North America alone by nearly 60 percent", there are other organizations for example chabad which fit the criteria of "full-time outreach professionals in North America" who if you added 175 it won't nearly be 60% more. --Eliezer 05:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the previous anon has apparently decided to register as User:Dacian. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you might want to check Current events. A user named User:Jablonski keep inserting lies, even though he was notified serveral times and was warned not to do so. I keep finding myself reverting his edits. His edits regard the IAF atack on Friday which killed 7 Hamas militants. He however, keep changing it to 2 civilians killed, even though he was contradicted by CNN and Reuters. I think his actions are accounted as vandalism and I ask whether an arbitration is good treatment for him or a more immidiate action should be taken. Here is my last version [11], Jablonski edits [12]. MathKnight 20:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to second User:MathKnight's opinion. User:Jablonski appears to be introducing bias into the Current Events page in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict. --RioBranden

Hi Jayg, I saw that you deleted some links to the Rabin conspiracy tales. Good move. Please read my answer to David Cohen at the Dutch Wikipedia (Yigal Amir talk page). I wrote the Yigal Amir article and much of the Israel content on that Wikipedia. The discussion is in English. Best regards, gidonb 04:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may be useful for you to know that a user named DAVID also bothered Hebrew Wikipedia on the same ground, trying to promote Yigal Amir's website and conspiercay tales.

I posted something on the Terrorism NPOV, and was promptly labeled a "sock puppet" by you, a person who knows NOTHING ABOUT ME. Kindly refrain from future personal attacks. --Serena7 18:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re:== Sockpuppet ==

Let's see, a new editor who knows how to revert articles, knows what tags are for, knows Wikipedia policy about NPOV and personal attacks, knows how to sign posts, knows how to format Wikipedia pages, and talks just like the previous editor who wanted the tag there. I wonder why someone would get the idea that that editor was a sockpuppet? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to learn how to do that stuff in about ten minutes. Having utilized the Wikepedia site, I never felt a desire to create an account before, I simply read here, until i saw what I considered something i wished to respond to. You, sir, are sadly mistaken. It's unfortunate that an opposing veiwpoint is treated this way. --Serena7 14:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If he won't reply to you let me know and I will see what I can do. For now, I try to stay away from this and similar controversial articles, if I can. I do think it is an encyclopedic subject, but I find it to depressing - both in actual content and related POV fighting - to use my time on it... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jayig, I appreciate your coolheaded attitude but I'm also a bit disappointed with your approach here. I hoped you'd rather try to mediate the case while it seems that you're purposefully provoking Witkacy with your WP:POINT edits. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 22:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is a difficult one and more caution in editing it could sometimes prove helpful. While I appreciate your pointing out where the citations are missing, the way you did this ("I see, it's citations we want?") in response of my request to explain who "the others" are, could be considered as unnecessarily provocative. Of course you don't have to be that considerate and do not need to take my advice if you don't like it. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 22:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know. That's only why I dare to comment here :-) --Wojsyl ^(talk) 23:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite clear if you read the text of his Code of Law - I've put the relevant passage on the discussion page. Happy to discuss by e-mail. RachelBrown 20:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay, we have a problem here. There is serious vandal who has an interest in Jewish subjects, so far I've seen four incarnations of him:

1. User:Eric Bentley, see his vandalism [13] (I had to revert all of them)=
2. User:Ryu Kobayashi and his vandalism (some that you have dealt with) at [14]=
3. User:Yoshi Hayabusa and his vandalism, see [15]=
4. User talk:Bentley Brecht, see [16]

..... and there may be more around and on the way, keep your eyes peeled please, search out this guy, and please have all the IP addresses blocked, it's mass trouble otherwise. Thanks a lot! IZAK 05:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay, Could you take a look at Category:Spanish and Portuguese Jews if/when you have time. Thanks! :) Olve 06:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not anti-palestinian to add that the first intifada was orriginally an internal uprising within the Palestinian community that was redirected by Arafat and company. I simply add that for the sake of historical accuracy. It is easy enough to verify, so please do so in future, before you make an accusation.

You may want to keep an eye on Religious persecution by Jews to keep it in a NPOV. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto to that, more help, especially from Jewish sources is needed. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:39, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Another POV trampoline. JFW | T@lk 17:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know. But I could not stand the sight of those misrepresentations. JFW | T@lk 20:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the latest vote/rant. --Briangotts 18:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming? You overestimate me, Jayjg.

Lapsed Pacifist 02:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no hard sources on there being a higher percentage of BIs in Northern Ireland than in Britain, just that evangelists of all stripes have a stronger presence, and I extrapolated from that. If you'd like to alter the wording, I won't object.

Lapsed Pacifist 18:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your political/ideological points of view should not be written with articles from wikipedia. Please don't remove external links, especially links to official websites. thanks. --Haham hanuka 18:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

see RTL Television (linked to rtl.de - German lang.)

Congratulation for your job on this article ! I was tired of people using th expression in order to create redirects toward the Security fence/wall.--Revas 23:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem like a reasonable NPOV article. Kingal86 14:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Good job on a difficult topice. Guettarda 15:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

. Scholars such as Dr. Burce M. Metzger and Dr. Gregory A. Boyd claim that even if the Gospels were not written until the mid-first century, there would not have been time for legendary material to enter into any oral traditions.

Wondering why you removed that. It seemd notable and relevant to the historacy question to me.--Tznkai 17:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, you're right.--Tznkai 17:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost tempted to keep the back and forth with him on the Religious persecution by Jews deletion vote page going just to see how long he will keep responding, but I figure I've long since crossed the line of productive discussion. What is his deal? --Briangotts (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. --Briangotts (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have both my congratulations and my condolences on your new appointment. --Michael Snow 18:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Likewise. Of course, the wannabe thugs and the deluded lackies will be certain this is evidence of the Worldwide Joosh Conspiracy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got the email from Jimbo making it official. I hope this works out for you. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wish you the very best of luck. I believe there are good deals on mental trauma cases available these days. [[smoddy]] 21:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Congratulations on the honor. Don't get burned out! Cheers, -Willmcw 22:48, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
        • Congratulations, Jay. --Viriditas | Talk 01:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I echo the sentiments of Michael Snow. :) Well done. El_C 01:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Congratulations! --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With this new power, I imagine you will start to look back on the old days and wonder how in the world you were able to so effectively fight your many battles without being an arbitrator. Everyking 05:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like Will, I congratulate you on the honor...which in this case is Jimmy's selection of you (and I think his confidence is in the right editor). Arbitration, as you'll soon discover first-hand (and must know second-hand), is no great honor, but it is a very important job (I used to repeat that to myself to preserve sanity...feel free to use it :-). If you should ever want my thoughts or help (and you have plenty of people to choose from, so I don't know how helpful this is), please let me know. All my best wishes to you, Jwrosenzweig 07:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jay, congratulations on a well-deserved appointment. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:33, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

In order to properly congratulate you on your promotion to an even higher level in the pernicious and pervasive and insidious (and, ad nauseum) wikicabal, מזל טוב!!!! Tomer ^TALK 05:34, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Nobody told me yet! Congrats! Use your cabal skills well... TINC. JFW | T@lk 09:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"You have both my congratulations and my condolences on your new appointment," to quote Michael Snow. Well, your loss, everyone else's gain. HKT ^talk 22:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jayjg I did not know that was the proceedure. (preceding unsigned comment by 81.129.203.10 {{{2}}})

Firstly let me say that I am sorry to have to bother you.

Secondly, I wish to let you know that a recent VFD that you took part in has closed. The result was that 32 people voted to keep all individual bible verses as seperate articles, and 34 voted that they shouldn't (2 abstensions, and 3 votes for both). This is considered by standard policy not to be a consensus decision (although the closing admin stated that it was a consensus to keep them).

Thirdly, the subject has now been put to a survey, so that it may remain open until there is a clear consensus for what appears to be a difficult issue to resolve. You may wish to take part in this survey, and record a similar vote to the one you made at the VFD there. The survey is available at Wikipedia:Bible verses.

~~~~ 18:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that liR has copy-pasted an identical comment to over 40 other user talk pages. El_C 23:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added you to the channel's access list, so once you've identified:

 /msg NickServ IDENTIFY password

... (for whatever password you have), now you only need to:

 /join #wikipedia-en-arbcom

... to get in. However, if I've not set it up correctly (and, well, it's been a while ;-)), this should work instead:

 /cs invite #wikipedia-en-arbcom
 /join #wikipedia-en-arbcom

HTH. See you there soon.

James F. (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have been involved with User:Noitall on the issue of his/her editing. You might therefore have something to contribute to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Noitall. ~~~~ 10:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, your opinion would be appreciated at Talk:Pan Am Flight 103 regarding the size of the page. I feel it's too long at 85 kb, and I'd like to start trimming it and perhaps moving a section to a new page. However, a new user (editing as several IP addresses and as User:OscarD) is continuing to add material and is being pretty rude when I revert. An outside view would be helpful, as he seems to think pages have no size limit. The section I'd like to delete is #13 "The President's Commission," but OscarD would prefer to see #3 "The lucky ones" go. I was also thinking of moving the trial section to its own page, and then tightening the rest of the piece to get rid of unnecessary detail. Don't feel you have to read through it: even just explaining that 85 kb is longer than most pages would be helpful. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:32, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

There's no way that can be considered a revert. What version was I reverting to? I had a feeling you would revert me every time so I decided to let you revert me 3 times until I NPOV'ed the section. Maybe if you wouldn't do reactionary reverts and actually try to NPOV the article that wouldn't happen.Heraclius 01:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]