User talk:Jahiegel/Archive 3

Jahiegel Defends Criminals Rights (wow, that's a tendentiously titled section...)
Notwithstanding that our views apropos of pornography and its relation to child sexual abuse are altogether contrary, notwithstanding that I oppose all age of consent laws and think that's one consent to sexual activity need only be de jure (cf., informed, de facto, or reflecting a meeting of the minds, and notwithstanding that it's likely gauche (if not plainly untoward) for me to query you apropos of your personal views (even as you make these views very plain here), whereupon I certainly will understand your failure to respond, I wonder if you might essay an explanation of how you simultaneously support Amnesty International (an organization with the aims of which I'm generally in accord and of which I'm a member, even as I certainly don't support the social justice activities increasingly undertaken by AI), to whom you otherwise ascribe the appellative sick criminals and whom you suggest should not be treated like humans; that sentiment seems, IMHO, to run contrary to those generally expressed by AI. Joe 23:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What's apropos mean?
 * Why do you oppose age consent laws?
 * How can an innocent child of 6 be innformed (meeting of the minds... its insane) A child can not comprehend sex yet and thus can not consent.
 * Are you part of NAMBLA?
 * everyone should be treated like humans under the law, even those who espouse the doctorines of child molesters. The law should adress that these people are dangerious preditors and they should be reprted to the Department of Justice and not physically dealth with by vigilaties.--merlinus 13:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: Jahiegel/Joe/ NAMBLA: My point is that talk believing that young children who are protected by the statuatory laws can "consent" to be your "criminal talk." You might consider it a legal intilectual discusion (ha) but it leads sick people down the road to devious ilegal behavior. How would you like a terrorist intellectually talking about blowing up your home city on the internet. Would you accept it or would you contact the police. Its the same thing to me!  --merlinus 15:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, since I'm a free speech absolutist and oppose all laws criminalizing conspiracy, and, for different reasons, threats, I'd be altogether fine with a terrorist's talking about blowing up my home city, whether that talk was visceral or reasoned. With respect to your other questions, I've noticed that your tone has changed rather dramatically, and I wonder if you might have inferred from my blank talk page that I summarily deleted your response to my AI query; in fact, I was simply archiving my talk page and did intend to respond to you straightaway.  I surely understand that your personal experiences color your beliefs in this respect, and I appreciate that you took the time properly to conflate your beliefs about the appropriate punishments for child sex abusers with your beliefs about the propriety of one's acting as a vigilante or of the state's undertaking to enforce punishments we'd otherwise term "cruel and unusual".  As to my opposition to age-of-consent laws, I first do not think the state to be qualified to insinuate itself into private relationships in order to determine the competence of a given indiviudal to consent to sex, and I certainly do not think the state qualified properly to judge whether consent given was meaningful (in the sense of contract law).  I further oppose all laws that seek to treat individuals differently on the basis of age (here, both the underage individual, who is denigrated when the state paternalistically substitutes its judgment for his/hers, and the adult, who is proscribed from engaging in sex acts to participation in which each prospective party has consented (I am, to be sure, a strong proponent of liberty of contract, and especially detest intrusions into such liberty by the state where the state seeks to ascertain what each party meant, notwithstanding explicit instructions to the contrary).  I certainly realize that even liberals want the police to enforce laws that will keep the US safe for their kids, but I am glad that you also appreciate the distinction between one's thinking that certain classes of criminals deserve to be lynched and one's advocating that the state or private individuals undertake such lynching; I now better understand how you maintain simultaneously your belief in Amnesty International and your vitriolic, if strong, beliefs about child sex abuse, and I don't think your two positions to be inherently contradictory or contemporaneously untenable.  I am not, as you will see from my user page, a lawyer, and I don't work for NAMBLA, but I certainly support the organization discursively, even as I am neither interested in sex with kids generally nor sex with boys specifically (I'm straight).  Joe 16:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

hoax bio of me
NP at all. No worries. Exams are awful - just look at my contribution history!! Holy shit! I can't stay off WP =- and I have a killer test tomorrow morning at 9AM! Your words have had a salutary effect - I log off until after I have finished my 2L year - i.e. tomorrow at 12:30 PM EST insh'Allah. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 21:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Famously, Justice Ginsburg, in her pre-2nd-Circuit ACLU days, authored or at least put her name on a paper that proposed the lowering of the age of consent to twelve! Also, you seriously ought to tone down your vocabulary use. It's tendentious, inappropriate, and quite silly. And the run-on sentences. More complicated is almost never equal to better. Trust me - I went through that stage once too. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 21:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow. My entire being "militate[s] against [your] verbosity." LOL! If you wrote that as your application essay to Thomas Cooley Law School, I would be ready to lay money on your rejection. Anyway, you have a serious problem, my friend. You are addicted to vocabulary. I have superior reading comprehension abilities, and even I get lost in your prose. Your nested clauses are way too numerous for busy people to bother parsing. Non-fiction writing, be it a newspaper article, a brief, or a WP debate, needs to be understood. The reader who doesn't understand cannot find your arguments credible and won't react to your message. Not favorably, anyway. What exactly do you do now, anyway, seeing how you're apparently not in school? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "[B]revity is the soul of wit". Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And how do you go from espousing civil liberties to lowering the age of consent? Logically - what's the trip? Do enlighten... - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It sucks that you're wasting your youth. You should be in law school. I hope you're independently wealthy. As for discrimination against the young, please! There's no such thing as a 16 year old who understands the long-term effects of his or her actions. There's no way the law should allow adults to take advantage of their immaturity. Whatever. I am libertarian too, to an extent, but this is beyond the pale. So is Ginsburg's report, incidentally. But what right do I have to speak - I vote republican... :) :) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
Ho Joe

I just wanye to thank you for your support for my RFA. I may have been a bit premature in nominating myself, but I might make it, and I've learnt a lot anyawy from the process. --BrownHairedGirl 17:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:HurricaneWarning
Thank you for your reponse. Like it or not however there is no such thing as true neutrality. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Neutrality implies that I have done nothing to affect the outcome of external events. If I see a guy being mugged on the street and do nothing, that does not make me neutral, as my lack of action contributed to a change in the status quo. If misinformation on an article related to say, an impending hurricane, was read, taken seriously by an individual and acted upon that misinformation resulting in that individual's death or injury, then Wikipedia has implicitly contributed to that situation and changed the external world. Anything we do here will have an effect, however small, on the real world. Thus neutrality is something we can aim for while writing an article, however Wikipedia as a whole cannot be said to be neutral. It is unlikely that an effect this drastic will occur with 99.999% of the articles we have here. However I still feel it is prudent to notify readers of the 0.001% of the articles that might. The best explaination of my rationale is my belief that true neutrality is having events in the outside world driving changes in Wikipedia, not vice versa. -Loren 04:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Infanticide and Ron Paul
I did say I am libertarian "to an extent" didn't I? Nowhere near 100% buddy. As my userpage clearly states, I belong to a rather fundamentalist branch of Judaism, and hold appropriate social beliefs. Not as a matter of policy for the nation, though, which is why I will never run for Congress. As to Ron Paul, and his "unlibertarian" beliefs on abortion, explain to me how libertarianism dictates a position on that issue? Libertarianism speaks to the degree of government interference in people's lives. But ending another life would be just as forbidden in lib. world. And though I know you don't believe so yourself, surely you must acknoledge that a reasonable person may disagree with you and oppose abortion in some or all cases as a wanting ending of life! And still be a libertarian... I am ignoring your immature views on infanticide under 3. I hope it never comes up in yor confirmation hearings :) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Merlinus Back, but rethinking
I have thought a lot more about what you said: I have altered my view accordingly if I may do so. I now agree with you that Freedom of speech is paramount. Even (sick) far out groups like Nambla have the right to express themselves in proper venues as long as they don't break laws. However, I think by dialoging about them openly like this, we do a greater wrong by drawing attention to dispicable things that they do. We can not bring Jeff Curley (from my homestate) of Massachusetts back from the dead, but, I wish we could. We can only do our best to see that people like that never come into contact with a child again. You, I'm sure would agree with me on that. We might disagree with how law inforcement should guard the playgrounds and the sick people who drive up in cars and stare at innocent kids, but you must agree that something must be done by society. Freedom of speech... the Curley boys parents are on TV all the time here in Massachusetts pushing for tougher child protection laws. That is thier free speech too. Your a kid who is clearly has not experienced life altering loss at the hands of predetors yet, so I forgive your being so innocent. I suggest that you focus on your schoolwork and not on things that wound and scar so many people. You don't enjoy hurting people for an intellectual aurgument do you? This is no game. No Game! Don't Mess with peoples headsonline! I support free speech, but get a life outside your computer. Get a wife or partner. Practice FREEDOM instead of preaching it and living vicariously thru people who have serious wounds from like child rape survivors. please stop it! I will no longer even look at the NAMBLA page. Its too painful emotionally for me to even know they exist. I'm speaking from the heart in pain... but for you its an intellectual exercise. I don't care if I use big words or if my spelling right. I wont even proof read this... I'm trying to express a pain in my heart and go on. I'm Hurting, Can you empathise or is this just a game for kicks? MARC--merlinus 00:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC) I am a Liberal, no religion (agnostic), Pro-choice, This user is opposed to online censorship 80px [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg|60px]] [[Image:Peace_Sign_2.svg|20px]] Merlinus (Massachusetts: Last Bastion of American Democracy... where "Personal Freedom" is more than a slogan. We walk a mile in your shoes! If you will ours!)--merlinus 16:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC) --merlinus 00:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)--merlinus 00:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind I removed the voter tags I put earlier. If you like them I will put them back. They looked tacky and I feel kinda chocked up. I still agree with voting and free speech though. --merlinus 00:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Separated at birth?
Unambiguous identical twin respect. Thanks for your comment on my RfA, means a lot to know people notice the good as well as the bad, and can tell when a given vote is perhaps a little unfair. Cheers, Deizio talk 22:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Afd
would you be able to close the discusion here at Articles for deletion/Kapust, which was nominated by the same nominator who nominated Articles for deletion/Strashelye (Hasidic dynasty) while in the midst of an edit war with the author of both those articles. he has later withdrawn his nomination. Or even better, could you show me how you did it? Shlomke 19:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks--Shlomke 07:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Fetuses, Serbs, and Harassment
On abortion, you're really being immature. Your opinions are making me slightly sick. Be a human - not an automaton for spouting anarcho-capitalist dogma. And nobody should kill children, before or after birth.

On Serbs, LOL. I feel like a senior government lawyer who's being meticulous and remitting payroll tax for his babysitter in anticipation of a circuit court nomination. I am in RfA land now based on my experience and contributions, and before long, somebody's going to nominate me. So I am minding my manners extra... no I am not :)

On harassment, there are three potential things I see here: Bottom line it, chill. Nothing to but delete and block. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Good old intentional tort - doesn't work. Need duty, breach, causation and damages (thank you, Professor Denno), and there are no damages here. Stuff is hard to prove as it is, even if there were good damages.
 * 2) Some sort of a recent anti-telemarketer laws - I don't know anything about that really.
 * 3) Criminal prosecution - even if there is a statute, which I doubt very much, which sane District Attorney will agree to take this case??

Qadianism page
Check the Qadianism page. It is balanced, it has Pakistan's consitutional amendment, links to pro-Ahmadi pages, links to anti-Ahmadi pages. What is controversal ? Siddiqui 22:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Mothers Day
Dear Joe, all I ask of you for Mothers Day is to share my unshakeable belief/hope that when the world ends, it will be because of me. None will survive. Yours Truly, Joe Momma 04:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
For the oddly flattering comments on my talk page. Indeed, I assumed you were being sarcastic and I felt it was in the spirit of things; I'm glad you took it that way. I'll probably encounter you around the wiki, so see you then. Skittle 14:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks, Joe for the comment. I agree. Sorry about the they bit. I wasn't sure initially if it was a he or a she. I found out and changed it, but got caught in an edit clash, so by the time I cut and pasted the bit back to the page I found it was the old gender-neutral version. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 20:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (the 3rd one in a row)
Thanks for the quite unexpected "Random Acts of Kindness" barnstar! I hope I got everything sorted out with him. I figured that, since no one else seemed to be helping him much, I'd go ahead and gived it a try. I'm glad to see my efforts were appreciated! Thanks again. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Court of Norfolk Island
Hey Joe. Back in the day you prodded this dog but never followed up with an AfD. I don't think one is warranted. It ended up on Dead End Articles. Wanna get together and fix it up? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Camara
That was as much about Big.P as about Camara. Really made my blood boil there... Have a good one. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Jahiegel, thanks for supporting my request for adminship! Unfortunately, it ended with a final tally of 45/15/2, no consensus. I may have another go in the near future, once the school year is over. Thanks again! -- getcrunk juice  contribs 23:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Logistics Proponency Office Internship
(original message on my talk page)
 * The answer to your question is that you should probably have left it alone. The guideline on non-admins closing discussions suggests that a debate should be nearly unanimous before being closed by a non-admin, and that non-admins shouldn't close debates in which they have been involved. Thanks for dropping by. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Feedback
Hi Joe I don’t normally do this sort of thing, but it seems appropriate in this case. Like me, you’re a great advocate of correct grammar, punctuation, spelling etc. I enjoyed reading your Language list, and I’m sure you, particularly, would appreciate the following feedback (and if not, just tell me to shut up and go away):

While I'm unable to offer you the winning Powerball ticket, I nevertheless wish you the best of luck. JackofOz 08:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Missued apostrophes – I presume you meant misused
 * Indiscriminantly – did you mean indiscriminately?
 * belief in luck exchange for a Powerball jackpot – the word in seems to be missing between luck and exchange.


 * Thanks for finding those errors; I pasted much of the page from the text of my userboxes, and errors were bound to happen. My typing (not othographic) skills also tend to diminish when I edit in the early morning hours, and I must continue to remind myself not to edit WP after 01:00.  In any case, thanks very kindly for your note; I'll make the appropriate changes.  :) Joe 15:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

HurricaneWarning Template
Greeting, My Friend,

Both "camps" in this discussion have compelling arguments, and I'm not sure on which side of the dispute I'd settle if I decided to comment. You are correct that the template in question is contra ASF, and is not something anyone would wish to see universalized by extrapolation: every WP article could merit some sort of advisory template, if one accounted for every possible precaution. I concur also with MiraLuka, and find the wording of the template slightly paternalistic.

You have requested consultation, I think, because the arguments advanced by your respected opposites appeared insufficient and/or policy-contravening. I do believe their arguments have great strength, despite some flaws. Examine, for a moment, your comment:

"If the primary purpose of the template is to aid/advise readers in a humanitarian fashion (as I think it is), then the template exists to serve goals that are, IMHO, wholly unencyclopedic and irrelevant to the project (the death of a few readers--or even valuable contributors--and the concomitant bad press is likely to have only a de minimis deleterious effect on the project)"

From the record, I see that you registered with Wikipedia in late-December 2005; as such, you may not be familiar with the facts (and the turmoil) surrounding John Seigenthaler, Sr. In that instance, a single false assertion (albeit a very significant one) garnered for Wikipedia enormous negative press attention, and caused many observers to question the viability and basic premises of the project -- a great boon for the Britannica boosters. The lessons of that episode are numerous, but those applicable here include: 1) The smallest misplaced line of text is a potential danger; 2) Liability for a project in the public eye exists not simply in the law, but even moreso in the press.

It is a sad commentary on the state of the American public that I can easily imagine many readers relying solely on Wikipedia without thinking for themselves. In most contexts, caveat lector; let them be undone by their ignorance. In highly visible situations, however, where the press is likely to overextend itself in finding and pillorying any "villian," no matter how remote the causation, or how unjustified the charge, Wikipedia must take care. This is an encyclopedia first, but also a non-profit foundation existing on donations. As editors, we have a duty to protect the reputation of the project.

This raises a second point. There is a rhetorical error in your comment cited above that has little to do with logic, except perhaps the logic of human psychology. Large groups are rarely coldly analytical, a fact I find unfortunate quite often. Nevertheless, it is a fact to which a wise persuader should adapt. "The death of a few readers...is...a de minimis deleterious effect..." This sentence is likely to win one more opposition than support, even if it be logical and empirically correct. Those who think first from emotion might well react to such sentiment with alarm.

On the precedent of Seigenthaler, I understand why your opposition is showing extraordinary caution when confronting the spectre of a possible high-visibility "press event," ie. natural disaster. Given your rhetorical misstep, I understand also why you might fail in this argument, even if the opposition were meritless (thankfully, they are not so.) On balance, you are probably more correct; the case is not unambiguous, though. Policies and guidelines exist as principles to be applied by the responsible community in its decision-making fora. Very rarely, an underdeveloped discussion will ignore these principles, in which case, review (and chastisement) are warranted. More typically, well-meaning editors apply principles as best they can to cases where principles conflict or overlap. This case is an example of the latter, and you should waste no worry over the result. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
, thank you you so much for validating my RfA! I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have taken both the positive and constructive on board. If I can ever make any improvements or help out in any way, please let me know, ditto if you see me stumble! Thanks again for your much appreciated support.

Deizio talk 18:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the compliment! I will always be constantly monitoring for vandalism.— G .<font color="#666666">H e  01:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Aww.....
What a cute cat! He or she looks a little mischievious. My two little devils can be seen on top of my talk page. Thanks for the sweet message, good wishes, and especially for the cute cat! &middot; Katefan0 (scribble)/ poll 04:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Curse you!
Damn you! You continue to be sensible everywhere I look. Are you absolutely sure you cannot be coerced into accepting an adminship nomination? If you don't want to do it for the fame, glory, and groupies, do it for the immense riches instead. Friday (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping me out with vandals ;) Grundle 15:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support,because it was clear that Im no vandal or a sockpuppet.It means even more when I know that its coming from an American,because I never dreamed that I will get any Amerikans support after all I said about the USA,but im plesantly suprisedDzoni 17:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

And thanks for your kind words on my talk page. David Sneek 13:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sukh's RFA - Thanks!
Thank you for your vote on my RfA. Unfortunately there was no consensus reached at 43 support, 18 oppose and 8 neutral. I've just found out that there is a feature in "my preferences" that forces me to use edit summaries. I've now got it enabled :) Thanks again. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

R&I
Thanks. You're welcome to help out any way you can there. In fact, I notice you have some latin skills. I was recently trying to verify a statement attributed by some critics to Cicero's Letters to Atticus, but I could only find online a latin version of the text. I wasn't able to find the statement, but I thought somebody with better Latin skills might, so I just left the link in the article in the hopes somebody else might try. Do you think you could look in the pdf here? (from this page.) The statement is “Do not obtain your slaves from Britain because they are so stupid and so utterly incapable of being taught that they are not fit to form a part of the household of Athens.” (Thanks if you can.)--Nectar 05:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Joe. I think it's important to verify these things, because it wouldn't be the first time a mistake like this occurred. If it can't be found we'll probably need to remove it from the article. --Nectar 07:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Kiwi Alejandro Camara 7/11(8/11 including proposer of Vfd)

 * Could I ask a favor? Could you count the votes for and against, over at the Vfd, they don't seem to be consistent with the result. I don't want to influence your count with my result.I just need to confirm.--Jondel 05:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please help on Mathematics
Posted by Pruneau 21:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC), on behalf of the AID Maintenance Team

Highway's RfA
 Request for Adminship 

Thank you for supporting/objecting/tropicanising me in my request for Adminship. Although I wasn't promoted to admin status, with a final vote count of 14/27/12, I am very happy with the response I received from my fellow Wikipedians. I was pleasantly suprised at the support, and was touched by it. I will also work harder on preventing disputes and boosting my edit count (which is on the up), so thank you to all your objectors. Hopefully I will re-apply soon and try again for the mop. Thanks again, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers

Thanks
Joe, thanks for the direction on redirect for List of honors earned by Hugo Chávez. I'm still fairly new to Wiki, and am never sure when to delete, redirect, and so on, so I appreciate the guidance. I did make one change: the content was moved to the Presidency article, rather than the main Chavez article, so I redirected to there. The main Chavez article is just much too long still. Thanks again! Sandy 11:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

CorbinSimpson's Request for Adminship
Thanks for voting in my request for administrator rights, even though it failed (13/30/4). Sadly, work has forced me to respond to you all using a substituted message rather than a personalized response. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that administrators, to me, should be chosen and approved by the community, and I will continue working to become a better editor and Wikipedian. No matter what the alignment of your vote was, I will take your comments seriously and use them to improve myself. If you wish to discuss your comments personally with me, I would be more than glad to talk about things since the RfA is now over; just leave your concern on my talk page and we will sort things out. Thanks again for voting, and happy editing! -  Corbin  <sup style="color:#009933;">Be excellent 

Deletion review "Persecution of Muslims"
Thank you for your detailed comment on my Deletion review. Unfortunately the review has been prematurely removed which is why I ask my question here: Do you have any suggestion how I could make my case in a more decorous fashion? Raphael1 11:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My apologies for having taken so long to reply to your query; I undertook to complete a few "small" tasks here, and, as I am wont to do, spent more time than I ought to have. In any event, I've followed your posts to the mailing list, and, to the extent that I think some of the advice given you is good, I'll not recapitulate it here.  I think, though, that I would mainly counsel that, in the future, you would do well to focus your comments on content, rather than on contributors.  Not only, for example, did the title of your subpage seem tendentious, but it also unnecessarily impugned the neutrality of other users.  You may, perhaps, think the actions of other editors to follow from their hatred for/indifference to the suffering of Muslims, but you ought, consistent with WP:AGF, to conclude that, at worst, other editors are avolitionally biased (see, e.g., systemic bias), such that a better title might be Edits evincing an incomplete worldview (or even Edits evidencing a malappreciation for the concerns, inter al., of Muslims).  I am a fan of dichotmous, even Manichean, systems of argument, and often enjoy attempting to prevail on the broadest possible grounds, but you would do well (at least on Wikipedia) to focus on narrower grounds and to assume good faith in other editors (if only in view of Ockham's razor; it's not realistic, IMHO, to think that sundry admins and other editors are conspiring to persecute Muslims).  I am an atheist and generally look with disfavor on religion and religious people (often, though incorrectly, imputing intellectual infirmity to those who have faith), but I am also able to appreciate that there are areas in which Wikipedia's coverage is lacking (although I could not disagree more strongly with you apropos of the cartoons controversy and the attendant display of the "offensive" images); you would certainly attract more editors such as me (including, I think, most of the admins with whom you have had conflicts, many of whom I know to be deliberative, moderate, and sensible people) to consider whether there is an anti-Muslim systemic bias in certain articles were you to focus on those edits you think to evidence such bias rather than on editors whom you think to hold such a bias and intentionally to exercise it.  Many of us have criticisms of Wikipedia (I, for example, have often voiced objections to WP:BLP, believing it improperly to substitute, at times and inappropriately, the judgment of a few for the judgment of many, and in any case not to reflect the proper dispassion and disinterest [in external outgrowths of our editing] with which we ought to write), but we express them in a decorous fashion, believing other users to share encyclopedic goals, and seek to contribute propitiously, not deleteriously.  Because I don't find most personal attacks to be disruptive, and because I've long since pledged never to seek a block on another user for a personal attack perpetrated against me (since my editing isn't interrupted or otherwise affected), I'd not likely have cared had you listed me as a persecutor of Muslims here, but you surely must understand that others take offense at the levelling of such appellative and that your page had the feel of an angry screed rather than of a constructive criticism.  Not only does one catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, but so also is vinegar inappropriate in this situation; I am confident that those with whom you have conflicts are acting in view of encyclopedic and not sectarian concerns, and I am certain that they'd react differently were you to raise your criticisms in a different fashion (there is, though, the concern that, for those of us who believe that the encyclopedic ought never to budge vis-à-vis the display of the cartoons in the article, you'll never be able to effect a successful dialogue with us; nevertheless, you might alert us to other areas on which we ought to work and you'll surely convince us of your good faith).  Joe 04:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA Questions
I have answered the quesitons you left on my talk page. If you wish to post them to the RfA page, go ahead. Thanks, zappa.jak e (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

rumors
That's pretty funny. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Jahiegel: Making AfD's not suck
Heh, big bonus points in my book for working "flying buttress" in there. Got a good laugh out of me.  Tijuana Brass E@ 06:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please...
...contact me via e-mail about the edit history issue.--Jpbrenna 08:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

ASCII
When you see a lot of 0 and 1s strung together, the natural assumprtion is that you are looking at the code in binary. You are not! Other number systems also contain the digits 0 and 1 along with a whole load of others such as 2,3, etc but a truly evil person (me) may decide not to use any letters that contain 2,3, etc so as to drive people nuts (make the game more challanging). Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA and Israeli apartheid
Well I am... touched! I'll take it as a veiled offer/threat. I have nothing but hatred for articles such as X view on Y, F criticism of G, or POV insults short of such classics as "Limousine liberal". I am no Zionist, but it doesn't help that I am Jewish, with articles such as "Israeli apartheid". Unless it's as current as "Limousine liberal", we should not have it. As for the RfA, it would be good, I think, to start it not before Sunday 6/11. I start a summer job on 6/5, and wouldn't want to be all-consumed with an RfA until after the first week. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: AfD of Pat Price
Yeah, thanks. I saw it before and have been following it but I'm staying out of it, I have nothing much to say on the matter. Thanks anyway, — FireFox 16:48, 30 May '06

Clay Buchholz
I deprodded this, as I disagree that the guy is "non-notable." I found lots of articles talking about the theft this guy was involved in.. so if you still think he's not notable, we should at least do this through AfD. Just letting you know. Thanks! Mango juice talk 19:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. However, Clay Buchholz is up for AfD now anyway. :)  Just thought you might like to know that.  Mango juice talk 09:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeking Editor Review Commentary (If You Like)
Hi. In conjunction with my RfA (that you voted on), I have created an editor review, to give people a chance to comment as to ways in which I can branch out or alter my contributions to Wikipedia. An RfA seems to solely focus on how one's temperment and contributions relate to how they might handle administrative powers (and the consensus on that seems to be that I'm not quite ready); the editor review opens things up a little more to a larger focus, and I'd love to hear community feedback in the sense of that larger focus, too. If you feel you've already expressed yourself sufficiently when casting your vote, then by all means don't worry about it, but if any thoughts come to mind or if you'd like to expound upon any suggestions or commentary, it would be appreciated. In any case, I appreciated you taking the time to express your opinion on my RfA, and I thank you for that. &mdash; WCityMike (talk &bull; contribs) 19:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like your help
I was reverting some vandalism at Cat Stevens and stumbled upon this: Yousef al-Khattab. The article is crap and needs to be pared - but I won't do it myself because of the obvious bias issue. I wouldn't be able to avoid it, anyway. Perhaps you'll cut it up into a proper stub minus all the glorification. The dude is a notable Orthodox-Jew-to-Wahhabi-Muslim story, interviewed many times for it. He's a career misfit, having jumped between no fewer than 3 different brands of Judaism before ending up in Islam. Let me know if you'll be willing to fix the article in your spare time. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid AFD
You may also want to see the AFD at Apartheid (disambiguation)Homey 23:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar
I'd probably have a witty retort if I wasn't so tired. G'night :) <tt> Radio Kirk </tt> <tt> talk to me </tt> 05:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
, thank you for participating in my RfA. Unfortunately, a great number of oppose voters felt that I lacked experience, and a consensus was not reached (the final tally was 30/28/10). Perhaps I will try again in another few months when I have a few more edits under my belt. If I do, I hope I can count on your support. Thanks again!

Cool3 talk 20:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)