User talk:Jayjg/Archive 4

195.7.55.146

FYI, 195.7.55.146 is an address owned by the Irish Revenue Commissioners (revenue.ie). It doesn't appear to be running a Web server, at least not on a standard port... —Tkinias 18:07, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Open proxies

User:Mirv/Open proxies explains how I find and deal with open proxies. Someone more technically competent than I might be able to tell you more, but my system has worked pretty well so far. —No-One Jones 00:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV and WP:AN

Excellent work on Binational solution! Incidently, I've created an admin noticeboard. See WP:AN. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:13, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Copyright problems on List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2004, ect.

These all seem to be copyrightvios from here. I've marked them as such, but Alberuni keep restoring old versions while correcting his own typos. I'm clearly up to three reverts on 2004, but if Alberuni restores it, it'll have been for the fourth time (another user reverted the copyrightvio template). Do such "complex reverts" count? I mentioned the copyright problem on his talk page, but he doesn't seem to want to explain why they're not copyright violations. In one of his restorals he claims it's from many sources, which is trivially true. He has an extra paragraph on one of the deaths, but the whole rest of it is a verbatim copy.

Just wanted to know your advice. Cool Hand Luke 05:30, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New Jew Template

Please see discussions taking place regarding the new {{Jew}} template that I have created helping to organize the "bloated" Jew article, at Template talk:Jew and at Talk:Jew#Changes to the Template/New articles. Thanks and Happy Chanuka! IZAK 05:54, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hasbara, NGO Monitor and User:Xed

I welcome your reverts today on Hasbara and NGO Monitor. I have also just asked User:Xed not to remove the NPOV header. I think, however, that your remarks should have probably been placed in the discussions or the user talk page (as opposed to using the check-in comments for talk). Also, I would appreciate your response to my question on Talk:Hasbara. Kind regards, BACbKA 16:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence

Due to its disorganization and unmanageable length, I have moved the material from the evidence page, 495 kb, to a new location and set up a new page. Please summarize your evidence at the new page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg/Evidence, putting your evidence in a separate section, following the date and time format and limiting your presentation to no more than 1000 words and 100 diffs. Fred Bauder 13:15, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams and Historicity of Jesus

Help!

(note that I'm sending this message to a few people as a general call for help) Anyway, back to the point (I've posted this to WP:AN): Can I please get advise on how to deal with the extensive changes that CheeseDreams is making on this article? She's running roughshod over everyone on an extremely controversial article. It's already been stuffed up due to this user's edits and had to be protected by RickK (in it's highly POV and badly structured form: at one point there were essentially TWO articles on the one page). Now CheeseDreams is making a massive change without using the talk page, and it adding sections that don't even have any content in it! I've reverted back and have requested that she bring her changes to the talk page. I would appreciate advise on how to procede with this, I don't particularly want to engage in an edit war with her. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:56, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New evidence page

Please your own judgement. What is needed is a brief explanation and links to your case against HistoryBuffEr and your own defence. The limits given are maximum limits, probably far beyond the amount needed. Fred Bauder 15:58, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Star of David

I was unaware of these associations, what are they? ed g2s • talk 16:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think most people associate a blue Star of David with the Israeli one. A black and white illustration is about as netural as you can get. I thought most people associated the yellow star with the Nazis. ed g2s • talk 17:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Wiesenthaler is a sockpuppet of the sockpuppet User:Goldberg

Please check the contribs of User:Wiesenthaler. Jewbacca 04:40, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

See also, Wikipuppets, and feel free to modify the page as needed. --Viriditas | Talk 13:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Wiesenthaler is apparntly antisemitic racist. Check his [I user page. I already filed a complaint in the Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress page, is there other procedure to act against this user? MathKnight 21:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, complain to your rabbi and then go shoot some more defenseless Arabs to take out your frustration. --Wiesenthaler 21:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Err

What was that revert for mr POV? --195.7.55.146 16:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The real question is why you keep inserting unsubstantiated and irrelevant material, inaccurate POV commentary, and trivia, while deleting accurate and referenced material. Jayjg 21:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli conflict

Jayjg, please do not revert Arab-Israeli conflict again or you will be blocked for violating WP:3RR. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where did Jayjg even revert once? He made edits to Zen's version to NPOV it. He never reverted back to his version. Zen is the only who reverted. Did you warn Zen? --MPerel 07:12, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Zen was obviously aware of his revert count judging from his edit summaries, so he didn't need to be. I don't really understand what you mean, asking where he reverted. Look at the edit history? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I mean show me a diff link indicating a revert. Just because his name is in the edit history doesn't mean he reverted. What did he revert to? He didn't revert Zen, he made some NPOV edits to Zen's version. The version after Jayjg edited looked more like Zen's then Jayjg's previous version. None of his were reverts, just edits. He's allowed to edit isn't he, and finetune other editors? --MPerel 09:37, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. My tactical error in that case was to NPOV one small section at a time, giving my reasons for each edit. Not only was I (absurdly) condemned for this, but it meant that while I was NPOVing, Zen was reverting and claiming my edits were reverts. In the future I will simply follow Zen's lead, and do one massive edit of the entire article. That way I won't have my many small NPOVing edits mistaken for individual reverts. Jayjg 15:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They are reverts. You could try not reverting others' work for a change. (Only kidding! What would you do of an evening?)Dr Zen 03:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In fact, my error was NPOVing your POV edits, rather than simply reverting them, as the history shows. As I've said above, I'm not going to be as foolish in the future when working on an article that you are busy POVing. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:03, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:Nasrallah Block?

Probable sockpuppet User:Nasrallah has violated the three revert rule while vandalizing my User page (User:Wiesenthaler). Since he appears to be your friend (you defended him from Mirv and welcomed him on his Talk page), I thought I'd give you the first chance to block him to show your neutrality as a Wikipedia sysop. (Cough!) --Wiesenthaler 17:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

State terrorism

When you revert text please do not revert legitimate changes at the same time. Philip Baird Shearer 00:47, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kevin B. MacDonald

Please take a look at Talk:Kevin B. MacDonaldAndyL 14:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Genocide and ethnic conflict in Israel and Palestine

I'm sure you are currently aware of the problems we are having with the article of this title. I'm not so sure however you're aware of my re-writing of the article. It can be found here. It would be useful if you could read over and touch up on some of the facts I have in it. If you do notice anything however, note it on my talk page and don't edit the article as it's still a draft and a bit messy. Evolver of Borg 11:00, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image of a child on a paedophile magazine

Jayjg, we have a rather disturbing image we need to get rid of. Could I get you to vote on WP:IFD to delete Image:Ok magazine 89 cover.jpg? It's a picture of a child on a paedophile magazine. It needs to go. Now. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:10, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pravda

Note Pravda's first edit on Rachel Corrie is essentially identical to HistoryBuffEr's most recent POV re-write

Ok, but why did you categorize it under Alberuni? Should I move it to the HistoryBuffEr section? :) --Viriditas | Talk 02:38, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. Your argument sounds as flimsy as my justification for moving ThinkPink under Alberuni. :) --Viriditas | Talk 03:06, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My mistake, I see that now. --Viriditas | Talk 06:46, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups

Thank you for protecting that page. However, you have protected the vandalized version, vandalized by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbachmann. Could you please protect the version before that? Thanks a lot in advance, antifinnugor 17:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:The Wrong Version. Jayjg | Talk 17:52, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have read that, but I do not understand, what I have to do to have the right version protected. Unfortunately User:Dbachmann is very active in vandalizing that page, therefore it is a bit problematic for me. Thanks in advance for your help, antifinnugor 18:03, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The point of the article is that everyone who complains about protection thinks their version is the right version, and protected version is the wrong version. There is no way you can get the version you prefer protected, as the comments in the section above also indicated. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, in this case I asked for protection, therefore I should like to have my version protected. His version is clearly vandalism, since it is a simple redirection with no information of any kind. What do you suggest to undertake, to achieve, that my version gets protected, that really contains information for the wikipedia user? Thanks, antifinnugor 18:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Input needed

Lost Ten Tribes

Hi Jayjg: Please see Lost Ten Tribes Talk:Lost Ten Tribes as to how this article should be presented. This is how I recently found it: [1]. I then edited it to this: [2]. Another user then changed it to this: [3]. Finally, I edited it to this: [4] which is where it essentially stands, awaiting more input. Your suggestions would help, the topic is important. Thank you. IZAK 07:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jew template

Jay: See the discussions taking place at Template talk:Jew#Simplifications?. Please provide your views. Thank you. IZAK 07:58, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Updated my proposed shrunken version. User:Alkivar/Jew its now slightly wider (about 20px) and the political/cultural split you proposed is added. Alkivar 05:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Islam template is so much wider because their using a much larger font base, both templates have no specified width and grow wider based on the widest line in the table. But if you really want it 350px wide I could whip that up :) Alkivar 05:46, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please keep the Jew template within its original narrow width bounds as this avoids crunching contents of articles. Thank you. IZAK 09:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks -- RfC filed on Auto movil

Thanks for your guidance, Jay. I've filed an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Auto movil if you're interested. Jewbacca 07:11, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Perseverance

Thanks for helping bring Alberuni's reign of error to an end. Congratulations. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Odd additions

Pwqn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making some seemingly unencyclopedic additions, apparently copying from Gutenberg files.[5] I don't know if it merits an RfC, or vandal alert, but maybe someone official can look over the editor's work and see if anything needs to be corrected. If this isn't your interest can you suggest an official that I could forward this too? Cheers, -Willmcw 00:05, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jewishness of Lost Ten Tribes questioned

Dear Jay: Would you mind taking a look at Talk:Lost Ten Tribes#Question about Jewishness of Lost Ten Tribes where a contributing editor asks in all seriousness: "...Is it NPOV and factually correct to state emphatically that the Kingdom of Israel was Jewish? The reason I ask is because if you follow Jewish religious texts (I have a number in my own library) and then compare them with secular non-religious academic texts (I have a number in my own library), then you end up with two different accounts...." Please let us have your input ASAP. Thanks. IZAK 07:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV warrior

I must say, Jayjg, that the idea of you as NPOV warrior tickles me. I loved, in particular, this part of Rachel Corrie: "Others dispute this account and claim that ISM's version is full of contradictions and misinformation."

The "others" were not other eyewitnesses, which one would be led to believe by the wording. No, they were in fact an Israeli journalist blogging about it. Hmmm. Bloggers are just so much more reliable as sources of information than eyewitnesses. LOL.

I doubt you even look at what you fight so hard to keep, until you are forced to. You don't want the intro to say that Corrie was crushed. But even the IDF says she was crushed. They don't deny that it was due to the actions of the bulldozer. They just dispute what did the crushing. But that's not enough for you. You're more biased than the IDF (who have damned good reason to take a POV -- the suggestion is that their driver did it on purpose and none of their soldiers lifted a finger to stop it -- not a suggestion I make and not one I would endorse at all (who knows what really happened? We know the girl was crushed by the bulldozer's action but who knew what, only they know) -- but clearly the one you're wanting to suppress). Their commander says that his soldiers may not have been watching over the bulldozer (to explain why they did not try to stop it from killing Corrie) and he also says that the driver couldn't see anything either.

Yet, you won't allow the inclusion of text that says the eyewitnesses say she was crushed.

It's hilarious. You insist that the text says no one saw anything in one place, and yet you insist that the text does not say that no one saw anything in another. Do yourself a favour. Admit your biases; admit you fight for them fiercely. I don't think lowly of it for you (I tend to think lowly of those times when you're less than fully honest rather than for being a POV pusher in the first place). I've not much more time for HistoryBuffEr or Alberuni than you do (although it has to be said that their bias does counteract the broader bias of contributors to Wikipeida and the existing bias of the articles) but until you do make those admissions and try to do something about them, you're just the other side of their coin.Dr Zen 03:29, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've never claimed to be a NPOV warrior. However, I do understand what NPOV is, and my edits are NPOV. You on the other hand, claim to be a NPOV editor, who makes NPOV edits. That claim is false. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you reckon you can manipulate NPOV. You are careful enough to include opposing POVs but you downplay them and you spin the text towards your POV. There are ways of putting POVs that increases and decreases their relevance. A good example is insisting that Arafat is introduced as "As a guerrilla and a Fatah leader...". It's true that he was both, but one could just as well have said "As a statesman and leader..." or "As a murderer and thief...". They're all attested POVs, easy to source. Which is chosen is where the POV comes in. I asked for that to be removed. It would be "neutral" to not characterise the man in this way (you could argue that it's NPOV that every characterisation should appear all at once, but in an intro that's a bit much). But we are to consider Arafat as a guerrilla and a Fatah leader (not particularly positive, not the worst, but just slightly tilted to the bad). The sentence doesn't even read very well in English. It's almost nonsense. But it stands and you and others fight for it.

The Corrie article is worse. One of your gang at first put in a sentence saying some eyewitnesses say she was crushed, but others disagree. When it was pointed out, correctly, that all eyewitnesses say she was crushed, out came the eyewitness bit. So when it said what you wanted, it was in; when it was shown to be unsubstantiated, rather than leave it to tell the NPOV truth, out it came. That's how you work, Jay. All the facts when they support your side; nothing at all when they don't.

You think you support NPOV? You put in that introductory paragraph that all the eyewitnesses say Corrie was crushed. Take out the bit about standing or sitting, or whatever it currently says, and either give the full range of different opinions of what she was doing (which included lying down, which isn't quite the active flinging herself in front of the bulldozer you were looking for so out it went) or just say she moved in front of it (not exactly what HBer and Alberuni want it to say, but you'll note that I don't choose to leave out anything -- for all that you accuse me of having a POV, I haven't at any point suggested that articles should be stripped of pro-Israeli bias; just balanced is all).You take out the blogger who disputes the eyewitness reports -- or put her bullshit into the section for denying the whole thing, properly credited as what it is, an Israeli journalist's blog entry. Leave me a note on my talk page when you've done it because I don't watch these articles. I do my bit; I try to counter your bias a little, then I move on. I don't have a fierce POV to defend and I don't bear you the ill will that some -- you know who I'm talking about -- do.

BTW, this: "An important role of every Wikipedia editor who respects Wikipedia's goals is to protect Wikipedia from these POV warriors until they understand what NPOV is, become familiar with Wikipedia norms, and either decide they can actually work within the Wikipedia paradigm, or leave for other channels in which they can evangelize their POV." can read to a bystander like "if you don't fit in with the pro-Zionist bias here, all good men and true should chase you out". You're perilously close to that.Dr Zen 10:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your POV. Jayjg | (Talk) 15:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vote on new template

I have now posted a vote (Template_talk:Jew#Vote_on_new_template) for whether or not people will accept the new template. Please put yourself where you feel comfortable. Alkivar 19:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

yeah i like this version as well... it just irritates the hell out of me when people edit a table and dont actually look to see whether or not things like background formatting matches... or when they add extra lines when not needed. Its not that hard to read wikitable syntax! btw thanks for the comment on my new sig :)  ALKIVAR™

RE: Nazarite vs. Nazarene

Before removing my sentence, did you view my addition to the talk page? The sources are there. If you wanta further one, here you go:

Consult the article "The Sources of the Old Testament Quotation in Matthew 2:23" by Maarten J. J. Menken, published in the Journal of Biblical Literature, VOLUME 120, No. 3 Fall 2001, pp. 451–468 and available online.

Please review the following quotation from Lee Strobel's interview with leading NT archaeologst John McRay:

Strobel brought up the claim of skeptics regarding the alleged non-existence of Nazareth during Jesus' day:

This absence of evidence paints a suspicious picture. So I put the issue directly to McRay: "Is there any archaeological confirmation that Nazareth was in existence during the first century?"

This issue wasn't new to McRay: "Dr. James Strange of the University of South Florida is an expert on this area, and he describes Nazareth as being a very small place, about sixty acres, with a maximum population of about four hundred and eighty at the beginning of the first century," McRay replied.

However, that was a conclusion: I wanted the evidence. "How does he know that?" I asked. "Well, Strange notes that when Jerusalem fell in A.D. 70, priests were no longer needed in the temple because it had been destroyed, so they were sent out to various other locations, even up into Galilee. Archaelogists have found a list in Aramaic describing the twenty-four 'courses,' or families, of priests who were relocated, and one of them was registered as having been moved to Nazareth. That shows that this tiny village must have been there at the time."

In addition, he said there have been archaeological digs that have uncovered first-century tombs in the vicinity of Nazareth, which would establish the village's limits because by Jewish law burials had to take place outside the town proper. Two tombs contained objects such as pottery lamps, glass vessels, and vases from the first, third, or fourth centuries.

McRay picked up a copy of a book by renowned archaeologist Jack Finegan, published by Princeton University Press. He leafed through it, then read Finegan's analysis: "From the tombs ... it can be concluded that Nazareth was a strongly Jewish settlement in the Roman period." McRay looked up at me. "There has been discussion about the location of some sites from the first century, such as exactly where Jesus' tomb is situated, but among archaeologists there has never really been a big doubt about the location of Nazareth. The burden of proof ought to be on those who dispute its existence."

That seemed reasonable. Even the usually skeptical Ian Wilson, citing pre-Christian remains found in 1955 under the Church of the Annunciation in present-day Nazareth, has managed to concede, "Such findings suggest that Nazareth may have existed in Jesus' time, but there is no doubt that it must have been a very small and insignificant place." (Strobel, The Case for Christ - A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus [Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998; ISBN: 0-310-20930-7], p. 103)

The name of Jack Finegan's book which McRay cited from is The Archaeology of the New Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), p. 46. Ian Wilson's book is titled Jesus: The Evidence (1984; reprint, San Francisco: Harper-SanFrancisco, 1988), p. 67.

Is your POV clouding your decision to remove my very well founded attempt to clear away these POV attitudes towards the existence of early Nazareth, Jayjig?? It is a well-established fact among educated archaeological circles that the atheistic claims that Nazareth didn't exist in the first century are false. It is not "nonsense" - the fact has been clearly shown.TTWSYF

I looked at the Talk: page first. Let's see, you quote Strobel who quotes McCray who quotes Finegan; fourth hand evidence via Strobel is hardly credible. As for the other evidence, you quote Strobel quoting Wilson, who says "Nazareth may have existed in Jesus' time." Hardly the ringing endorsement for its existence that you claimed all archeologists agreed to, when you stated "archaological findings have proven the existence of Nazareth as an agricultural village from the 7th century B.C.E. onward, and that the village did indeed exist and was inhabited in the first century of our common era." Jayjg | (Talk) 19:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hebron Page

Hi Jay, Let me introduce myself first. I am a guy who got born and raised up in Hebron. I witnessed most of the events in this article. For example, the curfew after 1994 massacre and the closure of the vegetables market where I used to play as a little kid. My grandfather was one of the Arabs who protected his Jew neighbors in 1929. I have also neighbors, relatives and classmates who died in the massacre of 1994. I agree that most of the events in the Hebron article are authentic, but the language is loaded with bias and political nonsense. Also there are lots of labels that are far from being objective. Now, if you go to any other world city on Wikipedia, you wouldn't find the story of someone got killed as introduction to that city. Unfortunately, people get killed every day and all over the world by accidents and criminals or other means. Be it children, women, men ?. . If one is to put all Palestinians who were killed in Hebron by settlers or Israeli soldiers, the article will be filled with these people names and stories. I am telling you, every one of them has a story to tell. I don't think this the place to tell it though. This article should be reorganized in away to reflect the true image of the city, not a partial snapshot. The story of this city is not all about killing and violence. It has other things that people are interested to know like agriculture, industry, culture, sports, education, nature, ? To make the long story short, I think any references and judgments should be objective with no bias or otherwise it should be deleted. Also things that are thought of as major events could be transferred to a new page and one can refer to them in the article. I'm sorry if I was aggressive, but as you can see this article is personally important to me. I am looking forward to cooperate to get a better and more reflective version of this article. Cheers,

Synagogue

Hi there! One or two comments and, please, do not be offended:

Synagogue comes from the greek words συν 'syn' = con (as in 'con-servative' for example) and αγωγή 'agogi' = discipline/manner/education, which itself comes from the verb άγειν 'agein' = lead (also look here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=synagogue)

The word 'agogi' from the ancient times (and even today!) has an absolutely positive meaning: for example, in modern Greece, people say "He has agogi" meaning "He has manners", "He knows how to behave" etc.

Therefore, I would ask you to accept my previous correction, which for some reason you thought it was offending or negative. It is NOT. That's how it is in Greek, and that's the truth... Kokoriko: 13:09 pm GMT, 9/1/05

Why would you assume I changed your edit because I "thought it was offending or negative"? I changed it because your etymology not only made no sense, but disagreed with every etymology for the word I am familiar with. For example, according to the Online Eymology Dictionary: Synagogue c.1175, from O.Fr. sinagoge (11c.), from L.L. synagoga "congregation of Jews," from Gk. synagoge "place of assembly, synagogue," lit. "meeting, assembly," from synagein "to gather, assemble," from syn- "together" + agein "bring, lead." Used by Gk. translators of the Old Testament as a loan-translation of late Heb. keneseth "assembly" (cf. beth keneseth "synagogue," lit. "house of assembly.") [6] Jayjg | (Talk) 17:08, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3 revert rule

Please count yours first, instead of vandalizing other people's work. Why don't you talk where the talk is: Talk:Russian (spelling)? Also, please quote what policies and what policy changes I am forcing. Mikkalai 21:17, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) Did you count reverts?

the first my history entry was a regular edit. Mikkalai 21:22, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thx, much apreciated. I wont break that rule in the future :) -Peace, --Striver 23:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mormon sock puppet at work

See Abrahamic_religion. I'm reluctant to revert because I don't know enough about this, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention. --Etimbo 23:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Sock Puppet here, I am frusterated at the lack of understanding, and the generalization that Just because a religion believes in Jesus Christ they must be dumped under Christianity. If you were to follow these rules, Messianic Judiasm, starting in 1960, would also fall under christianity, even though their lienage is clearly Judah. There is a common mis-conception that all Hebrews are Jewish, but thats only 1/6 of the total equation. There were twelve tribes, and 2 (Judah and Benjamin) formed Judah, and their respective religion Juda~ism). 700 Samaritans from the Tribe of Ephuraim also claim to have escaped back into Judah(Now Israel), and the Mormons claim to also be of the tribe of Joseph, leaving under the threat of a Babaylonian invasion in 587BCE. Most of the Books of the Quaran can not be verified, and the Oldest books in Hebrew are the dead sea scrolls, around 1BC or something. If you are going to refute the validity of the Book of Mormon, then the Bible, and the Entire story of Abraham is also unprovable. Religion is based on faith, and history. When Jesus was resurected he visited the Americas, and taought them astronomy, and his teachings. The Aztech calendar is very clear proof of Jesus's visit to the Americas. There is evidence available, you just have to look for it. Included is the link for the aztec calendar and what I consider definitive proof about the validity of the Book of Mormon.

[[7]]

The Book of Mormon Prohpets came from Israel, and date back to 600 BCE, and as such, are very clearly Hebrew. Our Wards(congregations) are still operated under the Levitical Priesthood, not the Malakezdic. This is in according to Hebrew law, Genisus, Numbers, and Hebrews.

Mormon beliefs are at considerable odds with all archeological and historical evidence. And Messianic Judaism is also a Christian faith. Jayjg | (Talk) 14:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

country infoboxes

Hi, there's a new Solution E that's been proposed for the country infoboxes; I've changed my vote from the Solution D that I proposed, earlier. The new option, proposed by User:Zocky, transcludes a subpage instead of using the template mechanism for this.

See: Nepal's infobox is implemented at Nepal/infobox using Template:Infobox_Country; Tuvalu's is implemented at Tuvalu/infobox as a wiki table.

Discussion is at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries

voting: Wikipedia:Country_infobox_vote

Thanks. — Davenbelle 02:29, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, and welcome aboard!  —Davenbelle 15:26, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ollieplatt

Would you mind explaining your support of rhobite's abuse of power. Ollieplatt 02:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Secular Jews

Someone has started an article Secular Jews. It looks to me like the article is very Israel-centric, and so far focuses (without saying so) almost entirely on the ways in which many secular Jews continue Jewish religious practices. Also, I suspect some of it may be somewhat wrong. I'm sure I will eventually "wander" into it, but thought you might want to take a shot first. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:40, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. (It's such a pain when what should be big, think-piece articles are started by someone almost clueless...) I've got a ton of other things on my plate, too, on topics that I actually feel I can properly take on. Hey, have a look some time at what I've done with Abraham Goldfaden and (work in progress) Yiddish theatre. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:09, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee ruling

The case against you has closed. It is the decision of the Arbitration Committee that all information added by you to Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles must be adequately referenced, and that you may not remove adequately referenced information from Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles, and you also may not revert edits which are purely organisational. For further details, please consult the Committee's final decision. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:47, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

Jesus: the Jewish POV

Hi Jay, Have you seen Jesus: the Jewish POV, what is this all about??? IZAK 03:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Goldfaden

Fully aware of that. It keeps timing out & cutting off the article. If you look at the edit history, you can see I've had over a dozen bad states to save 3 good ones along the way. Beyond frustrating. I'm thinking of leaving the mess for now & fixing it later, because I need to get some lunch and I have a job interview this afternoon. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:14, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Finally fixed it. And thanks for wishing me luck. I made it through to the next round, but it was bloody. Tough tech questions. Probably any further discussion of that should be by email, though. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:01, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice

Jayjg,

Whew! The long, arduous arbitration process is finally over. Congratulations. I'm glad that episode is finally behind us all. (All over but the shouting and maybe some sockpuppetry - but presumably over, anyway.)

Now that the slate is relatively clean, I'd like to give you some unsolicited advice, as someone who respects you. In my opinion, your user page encourages people who already disagree with you to wage "war" against you, and, by extension, the whole NPOV policy. It seems to invite fights. When a potential POV-pusher who's basically lazy sees your page, he says "I gotta teach that guy a lesson." So it's counter-productive.

It is important to prevent one side (either side) from bullying its way in and enforcing its POV simply because nobody wants to have to deal with them. It's important to fight against POV-pushing. But in my opinion, it's counter-productive to advertise that.

All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)} 17:50, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Proposed decision

Hey, you endorsed the RfC on Everyking, and you probably know it's gone to arbitration. Some of us feel that the proposed decision against Everyking is insufficient and too weak for a user who has abused Wikipedia so badly. I hope you can weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Proposed decision having read the proposed decision and discussion and share your opinion with us, whether it's that the decision is too strong, just right, or too weak. Just because you weren't involved as deeply as some of us shouldn't prevent you from sharing your opinion. Johnleemk | Talk 06:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fight the POVer!

"Wikipedia is regularly inundated with POV warriors who decide that what the project really needs is for someone to come along and re-write all articles of interest to them from their own POV"

Are you a crusader for justice or something? (LOL! ;-) )

All articles are POV to an extent. It's trying to get more than one POV across. When it comes to most history or politics, there is no such thing as NPOV.

redirects

The Russian (spelling) and Russian (language) redirects were explicitly created to be used, they should not be "avoided". --Joy [shallot] 18:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The unilateral change has been reverted in the sense that there is no longer a different page for the three things with parenthesis, but we haven't had a discussion where it was decided to remove the redirects. I don't see any complaint about it from you at Talk:Russian (spelling), at least. --Joy [shallot] 19:01, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocks

Good job on the vandalswatting. For a more long term solution though, you might want to check the IPs you block for open proxies (generally plugging them into google will tell you enough), which means they can be blocked indefinitely instead of the whole thing starting again tomorrow. --fvw* 07:04, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

I'm just having a spree of productivity at coding my RC patroller app which should one day make these issues a breeze, so I'm not going to join in the whackamole right now. I'll scan all your blocks for proxies and reblock if necessary later if you want though. --fvw* 07:08, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

A web proxy is a machine that requests webpages on behalf of a different machine. An open web proxy is one that will request webpages on behalf of any machine that asks. The former are annoying as vandal-blocking goes, but since regular proxies restrict who can use them to users of the ISP that operates them, the problem isn't too big. For open proxies you have no idea who's using them and there's a huge amount of choice in open proxies available for a vandal, so they are a problem (as you've noticed). (It's getting late here so my explanation may not be the most lucid possible, if anything's unclear by all means do ask). --fvw* 09:39, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

entry into AI

Hi About the entry into AI references. I entered a few critical items AND corrected the attribution of a few of the extant items (wrote out the author, title, journal, date + found the current live link in one case). There is mounting criticism of AI, and some of the articles currently entered deal with this. It is only fair that it be present. Kind rgds

Please review the Wikipedia:NPOV policy; one states opinions as that, not as facts, and attributes them. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:43, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanx

Thanx for fixing the botched state of Children and minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --Silverback 11:30, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

how about an explanation

Hi How about an explanation for reverting the edits. NB: you are applying your zionist proclivities to censor this article. in the end we must balance our biases to come up with something that is useful to all.

the items axed are clear documentation of bias, and you are welcome to check them yourself. They refer to clear bias, and there is nothing ALLEGED about the violations of human rights.

Keep your silly items from FrontPage... I wonder why anyone would look at that rag. But then you are impeding the insertion of a mild, well-docuemtned discussion of AI's dubious nature. Kind regards Otto Antid

As my comment above states, please review the Wikipedia:NPOV policy; one states opinions as that, not as facts, and attributes them. Rather than reverting, I NPOVd your comments, to no avail. It is not my responsibility to continue to NPOV your edits over and over. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Noah peters

Don't bother blocking those Noah peters IPs, the university of virginia has a huge DHCP pool (and I'm not quite ready to block a /19 netblock just yet). I'm just blanket-reverting him and if this goes on beyond today I'll write a complaint to their network admins. --fvw* 22:48, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

DanP / Gliding action

Thanks for stepping in. Would you mind restoring the TotallyDisputed tag to Gliding action? DanP reverted my addition of it (I objected strenously on the talk page). I can't restore it without technically breaching the 3RR. Thanks. - Jakew 23:02, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocking of DanP

Hi there. I saw that you just blocked User:DanP as I was typing a message to him :). He did break policy, but he seems to be cooperative and good-faith. He also didn't revert again after the warning. I'm not going to unblock him, but I think that you should give him another chance. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:12, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee

Hi. Glad the confusion on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard got sorted out. I was just confused about the ArbCom ruling. The comments were only for my understanding, certainly not a push to get someone blocked. Hope this did not come across the wrong way. Happy editing! -- Chris 73 Talk 10:19, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Monothiesm

Hi could you tell me why you removed my addition to the above topic. I believe Wikki is a democratic site and your views and mine have an equal right to be displayed. Why do you say my argument are incorrect? Sirimewan 19:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Original research. Wikipedia content has to follow Wikipedia policy. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I still do not understand your criticism. You obviously are a monothiest. I on the other hand am an athiest. My espressed view is not an original at all but an age old question. Neutral point of view should be to allow both views not censor out the atiest opint of view.User:Sirimewan

Please review the policies again; this is not about me, it is about NPOV and original research. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My comment was that you are as biased as I am. So neither of us are neutral. My expressed view on this article is not meant to offend anybody. I am waiting for a fresh argument from a clever monotheist to convince and win me over. What you are trying to do is censor a point of view contrary to yours'. So please do not hide behind NPOV and POV argument. Instead state your case and I am willing to accept if you are reasonable. User:Sirimewan

I'm not interested in convincing you of anything, except that you should follow the Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Original research policies. Please read them again and again until you understand them, and only then attempt editing. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Shoah movie

Relevant to Shoah (movie). I dont know how to build the sentence, but the criticism and controversies about the movie should be imho mentioned. In 80s there was shortened version of the movie (to 2 hours) showed in Poland and the reaction was almost hysterical. Recently there was whole movie showed, and again there wasz a lot of discussions in POlish press (though not as much as previously).

In short, Lanzmann did not made documentary, he did not intended it to be documentary (he said in interview with Anna Bikont that this is art form, not documentary). He made movie with a thesis, removed everything from 610 hours of material which did not suit his thesis. From Poles interviewed he chosed only most backward and primitive people. He ignored almost anyone (besides Karski) involved in saving the Jews. He even falsified some fragments (As when Jew is saying tha he was helped by Poles, while the English translation says that he was caught by Poles and put back into the train).

Something mentioning it, maybe milder than in current form, should be entered. Maybe "movie made a lot of controversies in Poland and was accused of anti-polonism and one-sideness" or whatever it's called in English. Szopen 09:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment by anon

Vandalizing? what are you talking about? I just made the entries more fair and balanced.

See [8]. Palestine-info 16:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some exotic Boas

You're welcome. Actually, I've been worried about Slr for a while now, because I've sometimes wondered whether he posts while dr*nk (his spelling has wild mood-swings), and now I've started to worry about you. Some of your recent replies have been a bit odd. Have you been smoking pine-needles? Jacquerie27 18:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, people do smoke pine-needles, but I've no idea what the effects are and I wouldn't like to try it myself. I just thought that if you weren't a native speaker, you might be Scandinavian. Jacquerie27 18:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Only if you like eating it in a sauna. But this is getting too much like a tennis match, and I'm off to campaign against the Freemasons. Jacquerie27 19:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

The case against Robert the Bruce has been accepted. If you wish, you may bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce/Evidence. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:08, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Tnx re "Relief-Admin Requested"

Your terse comment seems to have been appropriate from my PoV; once i bought into the prospect of having to handle it alone, i guess i sort gave myself permission to risk making a worse mess of it. The worst moment was when i considered the phrase "adult supervision" for a summary -- but i settled on "institute stricter oversight". That talking-turkey edit looks like the needed turning point, and i've now called the result of the VfD without further incident. And should be able to be more confident in future.

Thanks! --Jerzy(t) 04:30, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

So, apparently removing biased and disputable information from a heated article about which there is much debate is vandalism? Didn't you ever read the little clause about how you shouldn't post if you don't want to be edited? I reserve the right to remove that clause as much as I want.

CheeseDreams

Could I get you to comment on this, or certify it? I'm getting sick of the harassment. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CheeseDreams. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Thank you very much for your support. Krav-hanuka 07:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism

Thanks for helping clean up the votes in the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jewish ethnocentrism discussion thread. Some of the comments were quite ambiguous. The only point where I think I have to disagree with your categorizations are when the user said both "delete" and "move content" or "redirect". As we've said often, GFDL requires us to preserve attribution history. "Merge and delete" votes get interpreted as "merge and keep" unless the voter lays out a very specific argument otherwise. That said, I'm not going to change the way you moved the votes. There's enough time left that we can hope that those people will return to the discussion thread and, if we guessed wrong, correct it themselves. Again, thanks for pitching in. Rossami (talk) 23:48, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll be sure to check it out.

How do you feel about Neo Nazis entering anti semitic garbage from the Protocols of Zion in the Zionism page?

Best Regards,

Guy Montag

anti-semite articles

Okay, we need to reach an agreement otherwise we are both going to be running about and deleting each other's entries. I hope we can discuss this with civility.

First, I would like to thank you for allowing me to remove the pargraph about the historical Jesus and whether or not he was the Messiah. There are still a few other areas that I will have to remove for various reasons: for example the following quote:

"the claim that the Jewish covenant with God has been superseded by a new covenant.

criticisms of Jewish parochialism or particularism"

you have this under the area that the NT is anti-semite That is, sure they are based off of thessalonians, but notice the third one is not a criticism of Jews, but of activity that they do such as parochialism, that is not anti-semite. Also, sure the claim that the Jewish covenant has been superseded by a new covenant is there, but that is not necessarily anti-Semite. Christians think that Judaism is not the true religion, and Jews don't believe in Christianity, but think it is not the true religion. Can we accuse Jews of being anti-Christian? No. So you can't say this statement is anti-Semite.

While I do understand your reasons for removing the statements defending the Jews by Christians, I think they should be included in the article. We must not portray all of Christian history as anti-Semite, rather we need an objective point of view that shows both sides of the story. Also, some of your statements about how popes or councils appear to condemn the jews are taken out of context, I will be writing more on those in the future. Also,

"It goes on to discuss developments in the 20th century, both promoting and opposing anti-Semitism."  

If you include this in the article, then there is no reason to delete my entries showing a more balanced point of view (such as the quotes by St. Bernard or Gregory X).

Peace, a fellow Wikipedian

re: the counting of Redirect votes

Good evening, Jayjg. I had to revert the change you made to the table just now. Redirect votes are almost always counted as a variant of "keep", not as a "delete content". User:BM asked a question about that on my talk page earlier today. I just put a long answer to his specific scenario on his Talk page. Hope that helps. Rossami (talk) 00:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi. The business about sockpuppets is serious, and I share your suspicions (though I think that it's not going to make any difference to the outcome). I'm just a bit worried, though — are you checking the voters for Delete as well as those for Keep? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. In fact I had a look at some of the more suspicious examples, and found the same thing. I assume that the process is just about finished (it's five days, isn't it?). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:29, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semite article, more comments

Hello Jayjg, Its me again, I know you told me some time ago where to discuss, but I forgot where the place was (sorry) so I decided to post here. I have made some recent changes on the page to make it more balanced, I hope you understand where I'm coming from, if you have any questions you can send me a message, you can post on my talk page: Newcrusade

Hebron massacre

Jayjg, I've turned it into a disabmbig. Could you check if I missed a link that (I think) you've brought up in one of discussions. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

maybe you can explain

Dear Sir Maybe you can explain why you keep censoring the Amnesty International article. The main criticism leveled against AI comes from Boyle/Abraham/Brandabur/Cockburn/Rooij/Velloso and other academics. This criticism merits to be read and referenced, yet you seem to constantly expunge it. This certainly is not fair, and you certainly are imposing your zionist bias on this item. Sincerely

VFD

Done. Zabek 17:38, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Dnagod

Please leave comments at the entry for Dnagod at: Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. --brian0918™ 18:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VfU

SS has decided this is the best thing to do. --Mrfixter 16:25, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jewish ethnocentrism note

Thanks for the heads-up. Apparently I'm not quite yet a wikipediholic, despite the conviction on the part of many of my friends and acquaintances to the contrary. I spent several whole DAYS away...so I consequently missed your note, the discussion, the article and the vote. I never saw the article, but I did go read the MacDonald article. Personally, based on what I read there, I think he's a kook, but then again, I'm Jewish, so in his opinion my opinion is irrelevant. Oh well. I'm glad Wikipedia has developed this review policy, and am thankful that there are apparently people of good conscience out there who have the financial wherewithal to spend so much time seeing to the integrity of the wikipedia. I have been a strong advocate of the idea that drives Wikipedia ever since I first heard of it, several years ago. If you know how I can get a full-time position wikiïng, let me know ASAP, since I'm looking for a job...:-) TShilo12 10:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Enforcement of arbcom decision

HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg Decided on 16 January 2005. [...] Both parties are prohibited from removing adequately referenced information from Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles and may not revert changes which are purely structural reorganisation.

Which you have just done on Charles Enderlin. David.Monniaux 23:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's some confusion as the terms of that decision don't quite line up - the decision says "for the period of editing restrictions", but there is no period of restriction on Jayjg (HistoryBuffEr's is one year). Apologies for the confusion. I've unblocked Jayjg. I suppose for Jayjg, the warning would be taken only as an advisory on good practice - David Gerard 00:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The decision was written in a confusing way, and the way the summary was written, it seemed you had editing restrictions. David.Monniaux 01:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More Dnagod

I've noticed that Dnagod has been vastly expanding his main page, and thus believe he is just getting started with his POV edits and reverts. Can't something be done? --brian0918™ 03:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Make sure to keep an eye on his contributions page. He recently started Conscious evolution, which is basically just an advertisement. --brian0918™ 03:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Accents

Sorry, Jay, I got carried away with typing e acute, as I was getting bored. Just went back to change some of them and saw you beat me to it. If I edit this page again, I'll have to remember to switch from Safari. Everywhere I go on pages with accents, I leave a little trail of upside down Zs. SlimVirgin 04:54, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

War crimes in Dresden

Jay, I'm back after a long vacation. How have you been?

I got involved in Bombing of Dresden and had 2 out of 2 edits reverted by user:Philip Baird Shearer who seems to "own" the page.

Is it possible to say in the article that the matter of whether or not the allied bombing constitutes a "war crime" is controversial (or disputed)? There are apparently two sides to the dispute. The article clearly lists a German historian who answers the rhetorical question Was it a crime? in the affirmative. I'd like to add the US air force's answer, which is It's no worse than any other area bombing we conducted + The city was a military target. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:50, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

E-mails

Hi, and yes, I sent you about three emails via the Email link from the blocked page. I temporarily shared an IP with a blocked user, but not anymore. No further action is required. Thanks, Deathphoenix 18:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. No harm done. I temporarily panicked when I found I was blocked, and did the first thing I could think of, which was to go to the email link. --Deathphoenix 19:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chomsky

Please refrain from marking contentious edits, commenting out significant sections of the article, as minor. Thank you. RadicalSubversiv E 21:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've been here two years and have noticed no such convention, except in the case of reverting vandalism, which this clearly wasn't an instance of. I am familiar with Wikipedia:Minor edit, which says: "Marking a real change as a minor edit is considered bad behavior, and even more so if it involves the deletion of some text." RadicalSubversiv E 00:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

The requests against CheeseDreams has been accepted and the case is now open. If you wish, you may bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2/Evidence. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:44, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

High schools in ...

Not every high school is notable, therefore is not included into the Wikipedia... as clearly seen from the VFD process. How can categories accomplish the same thing as a list when there is not an article for every high school? -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat

Well I've added those others to my watchlist. There is also Foreign relations of Turkey, parts of which look a mess, but it doesn't seem to be our friend's doing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PKK page

I do not understand why you had a restore to that page as the information was shifted around. No infomation was deleted, terror network propoganda was filtered. It is a terrorist organisation and I will not tolerate its propoganda. Call me a close minded fool but I will not be declared a cold blooded killer by them.

Let me clarify, it was not the Turkish millitary that killed civilians. Abdullah Ocalan was at best the leader of a Terror Network as recognised by the EU and the US and several other various countries and organishations.

Information was not deleted, instead was moved around so it makes logical sense, terrorist organisation propoganda was filltered as well.

Einstein and Culture of CRitique

Thank you for deleting my consistent contributions named "nonsense" by you.

So I must delete your "nonsense", too, whereever I find it. Do you think that you can be objective in Jewish matters ?

Thank you!

Just a quick "thank you" for voting me for admin. Now all I've got to do is find out how to use these worrying new powers... Grutness|^hello? 05:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Banned again for no reason?!

This is really sick. Simonides and Zero instigated four out of nine Admins to ban me from editing all Judaism articles for a full year. Worse, they did so on the very articles on which I and others have the most success cooperating!

Josiah, JayJG, JFWolff and I have very different ideas about Judaism, yet we obviously have been able to work on these Judaism articles.

It is a gross violation of Sysop and Admin power to create rules that apply to only one person, and to no one else. By definition, when Wikipedia Admins engage in such behaviour, they are violating their own mandate, and thei "rulings" have no authority and are not binding.

1. I am not involved in any flame wars. So why the year long ban? Not a single Wikipedian was ever given a year ban when they were NOT in a flame war.

2. I am not involved in any revert wars or edit wars. So why the ban? Not a single Wikipedia was ever given a ban when they were not in revert for edit wars.

3. The supposed problems are in articles in which the articles HAVE ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED, long ago! So why the ban?

Not a single Wikipedian was ever given a year ban when parties amicably came to an issue. It seems that some Admins are enraged that our system actually worked, and parties peacefully worked out their differences. What kind of hateful people think that such a positive result is grounds for a year long ban?

4. I repeatedly take week-long (or longer) Wiki-breaks to let things cool down and allow other people to have their say without any problem. So why the ban?

5. I have taken many contentious articles OFF of my Watchlist, and simply let others do what they want, rather then engage in multiple arguments. So why the ban?

6. I have asked for and successfully used mediation when necessary. So why the ban? The action to ban me was taken behind my back, without informing me, and proceeded based on false assumptions - and potentially deliberate lies.

I have e-mailed Jimbo Wales and others about this very issue previously; they were all unable to come up with even a single instance of this ever happening. Ever. The entire ban is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and we should not allow four people with a vendetta to wreck our whole system.

We are unfortunately dealing with a small number of people abusing their Admin power out of some sort of personal vendetta. If it happens to one person, it will happen to others. What steps should we take next to initiate disciplinary action against them for these serious violations?

RK 20:42, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC) (Robert)

RE: Adolf Hitler

Saw your frustration with some of the additions of User:Male1979 on the Adolf Hitler article, I too am frustrated as some of his contributions seem to be ridiculous or unfounded. I would support you reverting those additions, should he eventually push you over the top. ;-) —ExplorerCDT 18:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful tweaks following my syntax edits! Wyss 21:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

saw you made again some reverts... nice job. If he will become the nice, charismatic, intelligent boy again as before you can be proud of yourself. Thanks for your nice comments. If it consoles you, I don't think any much better of your edits than you do of mine. ben 14:48, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi resistance page move

Hello - Please vote to support the move from Iraqi resistance → Iraqi insurgency at Wikipedia:Requested_moves. Thanks! (I'm dropping you a note since I've seen you on Iraq-related topics before) ObsidianOrder 11:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I second ObsidianOrder's request. The RM has been hijacked by American jingoists who think "Insurgency" is too light a word and they demand we be frank and call them "Terrorists" and then there are a few nuts who think "Insurgency" is inherently POV demanding an NPOV alternative but never offering any suggestions. We need you. Bring some friends. —ExplorerCDT 17:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3RR

I don't know the details of the disagreement, and I'd really rather not get involved in that. Sorry. RickK 22:02, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

3RR and Chameleon

As far as I can see, I don't think these are reverts. I don't know much about the issue however. The user seems to be providing sources, even if they are to support his POV. I haven't had a chance to check in depth.

On another note, it appears that we've got a bit of a Nazi infestation going on. I just had to block User:SS-88 for making a threat that implied violence against my person. If someone unblocks them and you notice it, please let me know. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks mate. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Treblinka

Somebody removed the steiner ref.

I haven't touched any othe this since '96. I't all very fuzzy... Christopher Mahan 19:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

==General==

Sorry didnt know. I think ==general== is a good idea. as its easier to edit it. (posible without editig the entier article) --Cool Cat 08:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Name of the Bund

The name of the Bund really depended on what country the people were from. I consider myself a Litvak ... Danny 04:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well poisoned?

Dear Jayjg: I was away for quite a long while. I see you have just automatically reverted my changes, without giving reasons. Let me tell you that I am not, as IZAK claims, a Mormon - though that is besides the point. Please state your reasons for reverting the changes made.

I enjoyed our exchanges in the past, but I do not know whether it is of any use for me to try to contribute to this pages, as the well seems to have been successfully poisoned. Hasdrubal 23:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Orthodox Judaism

I'm sorry to tell you that you have no idea about the history of Orthodox Judaism. Please don't erase my contributions to that article. SHASHAZ 09:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see there are quite a few people who have the same problem with you. ben 11:20, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Lebanese Civil War

Hi Jayjg. I'm the guy who inserted the "rabid POV" elements into this article recently. I'm writing not to incite an acrimonious response, but simply to ask a few simple questions that I hope you'll be willing to answer. I edited the article as an experiment: I wanted to see how many of my changes would be incorporated in subsequent edits. As it turns out, judging by a side-by-side comparison I did, none of them survived. On the discussion page, I wrote a mini-essay defending the changes, which you appear to have read; however, in your brief comment on what I wrote, you did not address any of the points I made, other than recycling the observation that Chomsky is "not accepted as neutral or even factually credible" and adding your own view that such people "craft polemics." Meanwhile, you reverted the entry to its "Doug Danner" state. I don't feel you provided a sufficient explanation for your action, so I have recycled a few of my own arguments below, and added a few new ones, in hopes that, since you seem confident about your knowledge of the Civil War, you'll be glad to answer them with arguments of your own. Please feel free to email me your responses at jjsadlier@hotmail.com if you prefer. Incidentally, I'd like to note that my primary source for the edits was Charles D. Smith's *Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict*, a standard scholarly introduction to the topic which is recommended by the history department at Amherst College, where I got my undergraduate degree. I find Chomsky's *Fateful Triangle* is primarily useful for rare quotations of influential figures. If you think Smith is "not accepted as neutral or even factually credible," could you explain why? With one exception, I did not cite anything that is not supported in his text. The exception is the 1976 UNSC resolution, which Smith omits, but Chomsky does not.

(1) Israel's involvement did not begin, as the article implies, with its retaliation to the PLO's commandeering of a bus in northern Israel in 1978. From the early '70s, Israel had been conducting bombing raids against PLO-controlled areas of southern Lebanon, citing as a pretext the "rational prospect" (Abba Eban) that Lebanese civilians would blame the PLO for incurring Israel's belligerence. To suggest that Israel was idly twiddling its thumbs for eight years while the PLO established de facto rule in southern Lebanon is fatuous, whatever one's political allegiances.

(2) The cease-fire hammered out by US negotiator Philip Habib in 1981 was mostly adhered to by the PLO, but it was made a mockery of by Israel, which had made concrete plans to invade Lebanon in September 1981 and spent the rest of the "cease-fire" bombing PLO strongholds, hoping to provoke the PLO into retaliating, which would give Israel a pretext to invade. When the PLO finally did retaliate - by killing one Israeli in retaliation for an Israeli bombing raid that had killed scores of civilians, including some in a Palestinian children's hospital - Israel had its pretext and invaded Lebanon, with the clearly stated intention of destroying PLO infrastructure and bringing an Israeli puppet (Bashir Gemayel) to power in Lebanon. It should be noted that the Israeli bombing raid was itself characterized as "retaliation" for the attempted assassination of an Israeli diplomat in London by the Abu Nidal organization. Leaving aside the obvious question of proportionality, Abu Nidal was a sworn enemy of, and had in fact been condemned to death by, the PLO.

(3) Israel's belligerence was explained in Israel, again quite clearly, as a response to the PLO's "peace offensive," notably including the unequivocal PLO backing of the 1981 Saudi plan, which made the usual calls for Israeli compliance with UN resolutions in return for guarantees of peace within its internationally recognized borders and an independent state for the Palestinians, but going back at least to 1976, when the US vetoed a UNSC resolution with essentially the same language that was supported by the PLO as well as by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. The "peace offensive" was unacceptable for Israel, as it raised the specter of the possible loss of the occupied (or "disputed" if you like) territories, as well as the Golan Heights, which had recently been effectively annexed to Israel proper.

(4) A partial listing of the "polemics" from my edits that did not survive your reversion to the "Doug Danner" edition: (a) the "violent exchanges" between the PLO and Israel from the early '70s onward, culminating in the bus-commandeering incident; (b) hundreds of Israeli violations of the Habib ceasefire in 1981; (c) the specific events - attempted assassination in London; Israeli bombing raid; PLO response; Israeli invasion - leading to the invasion in 1982; (d) the Israeli goal of evicting the PLO from Lebanon and destroying it as a viable political force, as evidenced by the reasons given for the US veto of the UNSC resolution calling for the invasion to be reversed, which you also deleted, depriving readers of this crucial information; (e) Israel's violation of UNSC 425 until its withdrawal in 2000; (f) Israel's backing of Bashir Gemayel, affiliated with the Maronite minority, for the presidency; (g) the fact that Sharon had begun to lay plans for the invasion of Lebanon in September 1981, which might explain Israel's belligerent actions during the cease-fire.

Do you find (1) - (3), as well as (4)(a) - (g), to be other than "neutral and factually credible"? I think you will agree that they cast the events of the Civil War in a profoundly different light than the current article's narrative; for that reason, I think my question is important, and I assume you too will find it so.

Thanks for your time.

Josh

Another anonymous editor has modified your edits and responded in the Talk: page. I'm certainly willing to respond there as well, one point at a time. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:34, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Interesting new edits. I had been making my edits off the top of my head, but the suggestion of sources for esoteric facts is a obviously a good one. In my next round of edits, I will cite every such fact. I would appreciate that point-by-point response, whether on the Lebanon page itself, or I suppose on my "talk page" - not sure how this works, but I'm sure you know. Hope to hear from you. Sneaky ^(talk)

Given your propensity for continued unwarranted insults, I'll withdraw from the discussion here, and restrict myself to reverting your edits instead. That was the outcome you were hoping for, right? Jayjg (talk) 05:04, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is this sarcasm? No, that's not the outcome I was hoping for. You have made claims in this forum, and you have not backed them up; I have challenged you on numerous specific points, and you have not responded. If someone called me "Mini-me" and suggested that I couldn't back up my views, I would feel strongly inclined to respond by backing up my views. If someone repeatedly challenged my unsubstantiated statements, I would feel compelled to respond point-by-point and substantiate my statements. The fact that you are content to revert my edits without defending your actions in this forum will appear as a further illustration of your inadequate grasp of the topics at hand. Is that how Wikipedia's supposed to work, Jayjg? Notice how I have made my edits: by explaining them and documenting them, and by responding to criticisms one-by-one. Sorry, I'm new here - is your way better? Come on. If you're so excited about editing Middle East articles, you must have a modicum of knowledge about the issues. But in my comments here, I have clearly insinuated that you don't. So prove me wrong and respond to my challenges. Or, fine: if you're not up to the task, just revert my edits without saying anything. sneaky 08:13, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Jayjg - thanks for watching my back, and for letting me know a major edit was happening in History of Lebanon. It's nice to see that Sneaky is actually a person you can have a discussion and agreement with. I'm pretty happy with the state of the current edit versus his earliest (Mr. IP) revisions. Your vigillance was important in achieving this outcome, so thanks! I'm going to focus on current Lebanese politics, both because it's important but also because it causes mental pain to anti-Israeli/pro-Hezbollah people. Once I've done enough reading of the history books I've ordered I'll get back to expanding/editing the deep past. It seems like arguing about 1982 is the only measure of comfort pro-Hezbollah people like Mustafaa have left. Heh. Doug March 1, 2005.

Jaygj, thanks for the suggestion that I review the "History of Lebanon" article. I was able to move large sections out of the Civil War article since they were 100% duplicated and fit better into "History." I don't think I made any changes that are ideologically significant to the Civil War article, since mostly I reorganized, cleaned up the chronology and the sections and some of the language. Let me know what you think, if you like. Also, if there is some kind of "timeline" template that would be interesting. Given the number of PMs and Presidents killed along the way it would be interesting to display that discontinuity somehow. Kaisershatner 17:26, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, I read your (correct) comments about the duplication of data in the Leb.CW and History of Leb. articles, and I'm working on merging them...but...this requires modifying the PLO page to add much of the details into "PLO in Lebanon." ...cover me! LOL Kaisershatner 15:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chabad

Hi Jayjg, Robert actually sent me this version by email, and it is better sourced and more comprehensive than before. You may like to trim things that are truly repetitive, but I have no real difficulties. It is better sourced than the rest of the article :-) JFW | T@lk 18:39, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Revisionist Zionism

A poster by the name of AndyL has consistently inserted misleading and disparaging information into this article and has petitioned Jaing to lock it until the issue is resolved. I do not believe it can be resolved because he has shown that his agenda is to provide slanderous, POV information into the article.

For example: He has stated as a matter of factly that the Lehi faction was inspired by Italian fascism and Spanish nationalism. This is hardly the truth as Lehi has different streams, some corporatist some socialist. It was a movement very hard to pinpoint.

Secondly, he has deleted crucial information about the split of the Revisionist movement within Israel and the Diaspora and the fact that Jabotinksy did not have any control over the Irgun faction. He doesnt seem to be interested in historical accuracy and most of his information comes from left wing websites, but he cites outragous and hotly disputed statements as facts.

Please help.

Guy Montag 02:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Finkelstein

The stuff about Finkelstein singlehandedly exposing Peters seems highly dubious to me. This is the Chomsky/Finkelstein/Said narrative. But from looking at the JSTOR archives, what is striking is how a) the book got very little scholarly attention at all; and b) that the reviews are uniformly negative. While the fact that non-specialist mainstream reviewers in the US said good things about it should be noted, the idea that Finkelstein turned things around seems to be a major exaggeration. Of course, it's hard to find anything very conclusive, since nearly everyone writing about the book has such a heavy agenda. john k 03:27, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Help with Edit Summaries

I have looked at Wikipedia manuals, trying to learn the proper text to enter in my edit summaries that will link to the section I have altered, and failed to find it. Will you teach me the codes or point me to the manual that deals with this? I wish to have my summaries conform to Wikipedia standards to aid fellow contributors to the articles I work on. You can answer here or on on my Talk page, if you will. Thank you. --A. S. A. 00:36, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, thanks for your reply on my Talk page. I can now link to the section I have edited, but it does not appear as an arrow and an underscore, but as a full text link "[ [ article name#section name ] ]." How do I create the neat, efficient arrow hyperlink that appears in the edit summaries in the History tab? I'm sorry for being so dense, it's probably very simple and staring me in the face.--A. S. A. 19:46, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

I seem incapable of deciphering this mystery. I don't simply don't understand instructions about how to make the arrow hyperlinks. I'll just have to use the full text hyperlink in my edit summaries. Thanks for trying to help.--A. S. A. 05:26, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Rule of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan

Please see major edits at Rule of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan. Thank you. IZAK 07:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

If you feel I am deserving, I'd like to ask you to support my adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brian0918. Thanks. --brian0918™ 18:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1982 Lebanon Invasion / Fisk

Greetings, I've been reading Wikipdeia for a while but have just begun editing. I took issue with the comments regarding Fisk and Phosphorus weapons in the article and browsed the Discussion page where it seems you have already posted similiar concerns. As a new contributer, my question is this: why is the info still present? Did you remove it only to have it reverted? I am a little confused. Thanks!

Cantillation

The article "Cantillation" may have nothing to do with the music of Mesopotamia, but the "music of Mesopotamia" includes cantillation. Isn't this what a See also is for? If everything in the see also where about the topic of the article then it wouldn't be a see also, it would just be content. Right? Hyacinth 02:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, try to talk about the article in your edit summaries, not to me. Thanks. Hyacinth 02:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In your laste message, by "the article itself" did you mean "cantillation" or "music of Mesopotamia"? Hyacinth 21:53, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Admin

Would you support my becoming an admin, perhaps by nominating me?--Truthaboutchabad 04:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're probably a bit low in edits, and you may need some more community experience, before an admin nomination is likely to pass with sufficient support. JFW | T@lk 10:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kevin McDonald

Sorry, I just haven't had the time. If my version is completely without merit, you have my blessing to revert it. But I'd rather you took a few minutes to preserve the few useful corrections and rearrangements I made. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:27, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

chabad

See the references posted to the chabad talk page. Unsigned by Truthaboutchabad

Well, we should give T.A.C. some credit for actually having an open discussion with us, as well as providing good source material. Please see my response on Talk:Chabad Lubavitch and see if you can agree. JFW | T@lk 10:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

History of Lebanon

Seems like User:Kaisershatner is attempting to chop up the History of Lebanon article into sub articles. I sort of like it being in a central page for readability, but then I have the bias of contributing a lot to this article. I'm not happy that (s)he lauched into this without any prior discussion. Feel free to comment in the article's discussion page. Doug March 3, 2005 17:13:32 (UTC)

Israeli Art Students

Please take a look at this article: Israeli Art Students. It would seem to me like the work of some Neo-Nazi.--AAAAA 10:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Good work! Also, I see this other guy[9] seems to be making some "contributions" worth taking a look at...

Weird email - Hebranaut/"David Tanenbaum"

I got some weird email from some guy. It was about you, so I'm posting it here:

From: Hebranaut <hebranaut411@yahoo.com>
To: CryptoDerk <derk@derk.org>
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail

Hi Cryptoderk
I have been blocked without justification by Jayjg because he and I have
disagreed about his edits. This does not seem fair. Does he have a right to
exclude anyone he wants from Wikipedia? Does he own Wikipedia? Can I be
unblocked by anyone? This seems terribly unfair.

Cheers. CryptoDerk 03:58, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently." Hebranaut is an obvious sockpuppet, since his first (and almost all subsequent edits) were reversions to older versions of Wikipedia pages (sometimes several versions back). As well, given his contributions and edit summaries, it is clear that the sockpuppet was created for the purpose of reversion warring and personal abuse. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This "David Tanenbaum" (user name from subsequent emails) apparently contacted me because my name shows up on the blocklist. If you need to try to prove this guy is a sockpuppet, the IP on the emails was 12.168.24.203, which traces to Grayson, GA. Additionally, I pointed him towards Wikipedia:Mediation and WP:RFC/WP:RFAr for gripes with users & admins. Such is the end of my involvement in this matter. Take care. CryptoDerk 04:28, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I got the same email. Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 05:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

American Defense League

I got a bit curious about this American Defense League nonsense that keeps getting stuck into the ADL article. Boris Pribich is probably the culprit; he's one of the loonier loons out there. His site, www.americandefenseleague.com is one of the most vulgar and insane anti-semitic sites I've ever seen. It's almost funny in a sad sad (and slightly, but not very, scary) way. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Purple Punkin

If this user is a move bot as you stated on the block log you may want to change his block to permanent. Moving "Good editing in progress" to "Pelican shit in progress" makes me think he's the pelican shit move vandal evading a ban. Mgm|^(talk) 12:00, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Odd. I've seen several page move vandals blocked indefinitely the last few weeks, and there wasn't really anything special about the admins doing it. A block I tried failed because someone else already beat me to it. Maybe he was already blocked by someone else? Did you unblock him at any time before you blocked him for 3 years? Mgm|^(talk) 22:17, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

User:Vaoverland - administrator

Thank you for supporting my appointment as an administrator. I appreciate the pat on the back this represents. It felt nice to read the comments during the voting. Please let me know if you see something I should be doing as admin, as I intend to be fairly passive unless it is clear I should do otherwise. Thanks. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 20:06, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

List of schools in the United States

I updated VfU summary on this article with these new points:

• The main concern about the article was its title, but it was originally at the proper title and moved in November, 2004.
• There are many redirects to that page and there is no way to trace them unless the page is undeleted.

Please review your vote, or at least provide a constructive way to adress these concerns, especially the last one. This is a stock message, but I replied to each voter individually on the VfU page. Thanks in advance. Grue 05:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Christian Bible

We discussed this cause at the Dutch wikipedia and we came to a consensus as follows:

Only one Bible exists. Jews have the 'tenach', Musulmans have the 'Quran', Christians have the 'Bible'.

'Hebrew Bible' has sometimes been used to indicate the Hebrew part of the Bible. This term does not mean that the 'Hebrwe Bible' is a Bible itself. Jcbos 10:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RFC

I've suggested RFC to Jcbos. JFW | T@lk 23:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Leave me alone

Could you just leave me alone and stop reverting my articles.. I think you are abusing with your admin status. Addoula 02:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see I'm not the only victim of the behaviour of Jayjg. Jcbos 14:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well yes, and we are not alone.. Lots of users are complaning.. He is abusing with his power. I think if he was not an admin, people will qualifie his acts as vandalism. Addoula 18:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jayjig, the link i submit is not a commercial link, neither an advertising one. The only reason you delete it, it is because it is mine, and because the info in the site aren't your pov. If you managed you, and other collaborators, to make Wikipedia a propaganda site, and a one point of view in politics and historicals articles, then at least make room for links from other povs. It is just a link, not an article.. And stop reverting my other articles... You are not showing your power in reverting my articles, you are showing your extremist. Addoula 18:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is a commercial and highly POV site, and of very poor quality. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The link section, isn't to put "good", "happy" and "US accepted" sites. It is a section to put things related to a subject and even if it has different POV. You are abusing of your admin status. Wikipedia had lost all credibility with people like you. Addoula 00:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)