User talk:Jayjg/Archive 5

Just a thought
I just wanted you to know that I've thought about it and I'm confident in your abilities as an admin. By that I mean were you not an admin, and were nominated for adminship today, I would support you. I've noted such at User:Blankfaze/admin, where I record all of my RFA votes. I want to again apologise for harsh things I have said in the past. Best of luck.

BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Notice
A request for arbitration has been placed against your abuse of admin powers.A.Khalil 05:03, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Farouk Kaddoumi
Can I ask why you reverted my changes on Farouk Kaddoumi? Thanks.

Palestinian Christian
I would appreciate your comments on why this entry was changed? Thanks.

Jewish eschatology
See my comments at the talk page of Jewish eschatology and let me know there if what I am saying seems accurate.--Truthaboutchabad 03:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ritva/Rashba feedback please
Hi Jay, please give your opnion at User talk:IZAK Thanks IZAK 06:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jewish Refugees
You have the following statement under the entry Jewish Refugees: 'Unlike Palestinian refugees, Jewish refugees had no assistance from U.N. bodies such as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.'

Now why is this relevant? If it is relevant that Palestinian refugees received UN assistance, surely it is relevant that Israel met its obligations towards Jewish refugees by relying on reparations from Germany and financial aid from a number of other countries?

Concern about the quality of your edits
Jayjg, as I've pointed out elsewhere, you reverted my edits to History of Lebanon multiple times without explaining yourself on the discussion page, and on a few occasions, you reverted to a patently non-factual version, e.g., the version with the erroneous chronology of the withdrawal of US forces, which I had corrected. Furthermore, on the Norman Finkelstein page, you have twice insisted on inserting "According to Noam Chomsky" before a statement of fact about Finkelstein's review of Joan Peters. In your comments on discussion pages, I have noticed your frequent and uncritical use of the terms "anti-Zionist" and "anti-Israel", as well as your identification of those perspectives - however you define them - with Noam Chomsky. You do not once quote from Chomsky to substantiate your claims, nor do you give any indication that you have read Chomsky's writings on the relevant topics; nonetheless, your views in this regard clearly influence your behavior in Wikipedia forums, cf. the History of Lebanon discussion, where you wrongly conflated my edits with Chomsky's analyses and used your identification of Chomsky with the "anti-Israeli" camp as a pretext for impugning my credibility as an editor, apparently because I was citing quotations from two of Chomsky's books. You seem to view yourself as a "watchdog" of Wikipedia's Middle East discourse, correcting any "anti-Israel" bias that might crop up; however, in my interactions with you, you have seemed to follow a pre-emptive policy of reverting unwelcome changes without explaining them. I've asked you to explain yourself numerous times, left questions on your talk page, and so on, but you have steadfastly refused to engage with me. I am tempted to conclude that you feel your admin status exempts you from the requirement that one critically engage with his fellow editors when making changes to an article. I don't want to think this about you, but other comments on your discussion page seem to substantiate it - it seems a number of people have had issues with your pre-emptive and unexplained edits. I again invite you to respond to the many questions I have posed to you, here and elsewhere; but in general, I'm concerned that you are using the "NPOV" mantra to imbue Middle East articles with a fairly crude pro-Israel cant, and I hope that you will explain and document your edits from now on. sneaky 09:05, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * As I've explained quite clearly to you, I will not engage in meaningful discourse with you until you apologize for your abusive comments to me. Jayjg (talk) 15:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my abusive comments to you. sneaky 05:00, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Now that "meaningful discourse" is enabled, I invite you to respond to the various questions and challenges I have posed to you. Perhaps you would like to start by responding to my post on the History of Lebanon page under "Why the Revert"?  I hope you will also consider writing a substantive response to my arguments on the Arbitration page, as I have written a substantive response to yours. sneaky 06:48, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * As the Arbitration page is a "current issue", I hope you will respond thoroughly to my arguments there. Additionally, I have three specific questions for you, because I am curious, and I also think the Wikipedia community has a right to know the answers.  (1) Why do you feel justified in "NPOV"-ing Middle East articles without explaining yourself on the Talk pages and giving clear indications that you are familiar with the relevant history and political dynamics?  (2) Why do you attack Chomsky's credibility without having read his work? (3) Why do you equate critical assessments of the state of Israel with "anti-Israel" bias?  As you know, I've repeatedly given specific examples of each tendency elsewhere, so I will assume examples are superfluous here. sneaky 07:13, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * I apologized on the assumption that you would, as I put it in the post immediately preceding your ultimatum, "respond to the many questions I have posed to you". If you think my questions are "leading", then why don't you argue the point with me?  Go through questions (1)-(3) above, and explain to me exactly why I'm wrong about you.  Personally, I think they're not "leading", but firmly based on your comments and actions, as I have argued elsewhere.  At this point, it is hard to interpret your recalcitrance as anything other than a tactic of evasion.  Are my perceptions of your editorial misconduct mistaken?  Tell me how. sneaky 05:34, Mar 15, 2005


 * I agree with you. Jayjg edited my perfectly factual additions to "Jewish State" with no explanation or possible justification.  (UTC)


 * Your edits were hardly factual, and decidedly biased. And you provided no explanation for them, not even an edit comment.  People who enter edit non-factual and biased edits without first trying the Talk: page, or even entering an edit comment, shouldn't be surprised when their edits are reverted without comment. Jayjg (talk)  23:55, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * So why did you revert or delete my edits to History of Lebanon on multiple occasions without commenting, after I had left detailed explanations of my edits on the Talk page? You know as well as I do that your policy of reverting my edits without comment long preceded my "Mini-me" jibe, which you thereafter used as a pretext for avoiding my challenges.  Perusing your Talk archives, I see that I am the latest in a long line of editors who have had edits reverted or deleted by you without substantive comment.  This is a violation of Wikipedia policy: "if, in your considered judgment, a page simply needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do that. But preserve any old contents you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change."  Perhaps you would rejoin that you reverted my edits, and everyone else's edits, because they were "rabidly POV", as one edit summary of yours claimed.  However, that would also be a violation of Wikipedia policy: "There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will not be induced to change it, we have sometimes taken to removing the text to the talk page itself (but not deleting it entirely). But the latter should be done more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased."  Your crude pro-Israel bias, which I have detailed elsewhere, clearly guides your editorial practices and is itself a violation of Wikipedia policy: "Those who constantly attempt to advocate their views on politically charged topics, and who seem not to care about whether other points of view are represented fairly, are violating the non-bias policy."  I have apologized for my violation of Wikipedia policy; I suggest you follow suit by apologizing for your violations and pledging not to repeat them in the future.  I also suggest that you make good on your pledge to engage in "meaningful discourse" by responding to my initial post above, which you certainly cannot characterize as being composed of "leading questions" (your phrase from my talk page). sneaky 02:15, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

A few final comments. You wrote on my talk page: "I've explained my reasoning quite clearly on a number of occasions, including my explanation of why I reverted your POV edits". Anyone who takes the time to review your "explanations" will realize the absurdity of these recycled falsehoods; I have personally explained the absurdity of these and other claims elsewhere. As I suggested there, "on the Arbitration Policy page, I see the following as one possible 'Outcome': an 'Arbitration Decree' stating 'User X, refrain from editing this group of articles' . I think there is plenty of evidence on this page to substantiate a Decree stating 'User Jayjg, refrain from editing articles pertaining to the Middle East'." Given the poor enforcement mechanisms available for policing fraudulent editors such as yourself, it's not worth my time to pursue this any further. However, perhaps these posts will be of use to editors in the future who wish to hold you accountable for the sort of inappropriate and harmful practices I have documented. sneaky 00:35, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Nazarene
I'm too much of an ignoramus to involve myself in Nazarene. Perhaps WP:RFC will quieten things down again. Please use the 3RR scrupulously against all sides. JFW | T@lk  21:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Behaviour
My edit at Simon bar Kokhba was just to show you what your behaviour is like. When I read your talkpage, I see several people complaining about your revert their edits all of them. It's quite annoying when someone follows you to undo all your edits, so please stop that. I'm a normal Wikipedian, not a vandal. Jcbos 23:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * When you first encountered resistance from several editors to your unilateral changes, you should have stopped and reconsidered, and tried to build consensus; that is the Wiki way. Instead you went ahead and re-did your edits, and continued making changes and reverting to them on many other articles, in the face of spontaneous opposition from at least 5 editors    , while referring to other editors edits as "vandalism".  This was not long after you joined Wikipedia, and after you had made only 15 other edits.  Furthermore, when people brought dictionary definitions showing your understanding of the usage of the word Bible in English was incorrect, you said it was "patent nonsense", and when they mentioned other usages of the word "Bible", you said those changes "NEED" to be reverted because they were "pure lies". You also used deceptive edit summaries, and admitted to reverting my edits just to annoy me.  You may not be a vandal, but there was no way of telling that from your edits and behaviour. Jayjg (talk)  15:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

International law
Yes, I will be working on the article, but need to find time to study your articles and others first. Also, I'm hoping to pull in some real lawyers, not just people like me who play one on wikipedia. :-) --Leifern 19:44, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

RC
Jayjg, I can assure you that there is no consensus of administrators, nor is the issue whether or not there are other administrators willing to ban that Troll. Administrators carry out community made policy. Whether an administrator, or all the administrators, want to ban that troll is not the point, the point is, has the community given them the authority to do that. They have clearly not in this case. Please, follow policy. Mark Richards 21:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi there. You listed in the block explanation that you thought that the user was a previously banned user. If you are using that piece of policy to justify the block, then the procedure is clear, and you did not follow it. If you are now claiming that the block is justified under some other piece of policy, please make it clear which one. It is not clear to me that any harrassment is going on, and several other admins are also concerned. I think, given that there is no urgent need to block this user at all, that you would be better using a RFC or some other method, since there is clearly not consensus behind your behavior. Appreciate your work though, Mark Richards 21:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * What "behaviour" are you talking about? Jayjg (talk) 21:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Continuing to block this user. Appologies if it was not you that actually blocked him/her, I may have mis-spoken there. Mark Richards 00:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) Actually, I think it was you that blocked him. That's the behavior I'm talking about. Mark Richards 00:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the Recycling Troll, I've never blocked him. Why do you think I have? Jayjg (talk) 14:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In that case I owe you my sincere appologies, I misread the block logs and thought that you had blocked that user. Mark Richards 17:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

APPAF
Greetings. I usually stay clear of the minefield of Israeli-Palestinian articles, but I just added an article on the American Palestine Public Affairs Forum. Since you're interested in this sort of thing, I thought you might want to look it over for accuracy and possible bias. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:45, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Boethusians
Thanks for your helpful note in the Votes for Deletion page for Boethusians. I went through the history of the person who initiated the vfd and she has made numerous inappropriate vfd recommends (see Pan-Turkism, for instance). Anyway I have adjusted the article to reflect the Jewish Encyc template. --Briangotts 21:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy of errors
Thanks for jumping in. I was in the middle of searching for and relinking stuff in a bunch of articles to the new name when my boss suggested I actually do some work. The nerve!--Cberlet 22:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nazarene
Okay, but ask Wesley too, maybe Danny too -- I am sure they know more than I do about the origins and history of the term. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  16:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I need to do a little research, I hope I can get to it tomorrow, Slrubenstein  |  Talk  16:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Heh. I was expected to see something about the "Church of the Nazarene". I'm tracking down that prophecy reference in Matthew, btw. And no, there is no generally accepted resolution at this time. Give it twenty to fifty years, though. NathanZook 06:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Night (book)
Jay, I've put the rewrite up. I've let James know too, as I saw he'd commented on the talk page. There are still a few things I'd like to add to it; details at Talk:Night (book). Feel free to revert or edit as you see fit. SlimVirgin 02:39, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Heya
Thanks Jay... it means a lot to hear that from you :) But, I've got to leave. I can't let my Christianity slide any longer. I'm sure you understand. If you need to get in contact with me, I'll be updating my Wikipedia email address so just fire off an email through there... in about 3 weeks time I'll not be contactable through the old email address. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Why should Christianity conflict with Wikipedia? Stay, TBSDY, do us all a favour. We need your antipodean clear-mindedness against all that madness on the project! JFW | T@lk  21:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your vote on my adminship nomination. Your support vote, and confidence in me, is very much appreciated. Best regards,  &mdash; mark ✎ 22:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thnx for redirecting
Thanx for redirecting to Talk:Bible to find the lengthy discussion initiated by User:Jcbos in his crusade to remove Christian before Bible in some contexts in some articles on Wikipedia. A poll was held on the Dutch Wikipedia yesterday. He got the upperhand. He started a poll here - and it looks like he won't get the upperhand here. Gebruiker:Dedalus 09:22, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

re: Bible/Christian Bible + note
Jayjg...Thanks for the heads up on the Christian\Bible debate...I've got it open in another window and will check it out as soon as I'm done with this note...I just wanted to inquire as to why Jewish ethnocentrism still exists as an (albeit content=_NULL) article, when the votes have been cast and tallied, and no comment has been logged on its TALK page in about a month. Kol tov. -t TShilo12 07:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A word, if you please
Hi, Jayjg. I'd like to speak with you about a ban to an IP I sometimes post from. To make a long story short, it's a school IP and I know the vandal (not me). I'd rather not discuss it in front of everyone though. Could you either tell me your email or mail me, at Allerian486 at gmail dot com? I'm sure we'll be able to work something out. Thanks in advance for your time. --BDD 04:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ustase
The Ustashe page blocks edit because of a spam filter. Could you do something about this?

Thanks,

06:04, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here you go. This is the exact message I got.

Spam protection filter From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to an external site.

See m:Spam blacklist for a full list of blocked sites. If you believe that the spam filter is mistakenly blocking the edit, then please contact an m:Administrator. The following is the section of the page that triggered the filter:

The following text is what triggered our spam filter: "http://www.ustasa.xs3...com"

Return to Main Page.

I put 2 more dots because it keeps putting a filter up.

Guy Montag 06:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I can edit now.

Guy Montag 06:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nicolas Sarkozy
A couple of posters are having a debate with me at whether having a Jewish mother makes Nicolas Sarkozy Halachicly Jewish. I of course, said that it does, but we are having a friendly disagreement. Yet the poster is adamant at putting in some relativistic mumbo jumbo which has nothing to do with Jewish religious law. Sarkozy was born Jewish but he was raised in and embraced Catholism. I wrote that exactly, but their attempt to whitewash information on his Jewish origins is troubling.

Could you come in and arbitrate or post your opinion? Thanks

Guy Montag 11:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that the above is a gross misrepresentation.
 * First, Mr Sarkozy presents himself as a Roman Catholic. Thus, he cannot be "Jewish" if one defines "Jewish" as "somebody who embraces the Judaic religion".
 * Second, there's the question of being Jewish according to Jewish religion laws. The above poster first wrote that Sarkozy was Jewish without any kind of precision. I myself had to add that this characterization was made according to Jewish religious law. This is important, because there exist many characterizations of who is a Jew and who isn't. The Nazis had one, for instance. I am told that several branches of Judaism have differing interpretations on this. David.Monniaux 18:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This has as much to do with ethnicity as it does religion. A person born to a Jewish mother becomes ethnically, though not always religiously Jewish. I was merely noting his status as on a religio-ethnic basis, as Jews are a religio-nation. As for the addition, it was a good compromise and I added the note to arbitrate before I read your correction. Nontheless, your statetement that different streams have different definitions is wrong. The Reform movement definition of who is Jewish, through mumbolegalism called "patralineal descent" is an adaption from the Halachic tradition of a mother being Jewish. Even the liberal streams accept this, they are just trying to adopt that any member who is Jewish in the family can be regarded as Jewish, mother or father. I merely stated the long held legal tradition. As for their definition, it is merely an adaption on their part to fix the cognitive dissonance of the fact that they are assimilating.

22:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) Guy Montag 22:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Guy Montag 22:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank You! from Carbonite
Thank you for supporting my RfA. I very much appreciate your confidence in me. Please let me know if you see something I should (or shouldn't) be doing as an admin. Regards, Patrick. Carbonite | Talk 13:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

GRider
Regarding GRider's 'Socratic' VfD nominations and the ensuing reactions by voters, please read and comment on Requests for comment/GRider2. Thanks. Radiant_* 12:23, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Encyclopedia of Jewish History: Events and Eras of the Jewish People
Hey. With respect to the source: I was a bit distracted earlier, I should note that I mistranslated it somewhat in haste (also I ran out of edit summary space, I could not fit 'people' in it). The title reads literally: (Korot Am Yisrael-- קורות עם ישראל), but by 'Israel' they actually meant 'Jewish,' that should have been very clear to me, but still manged to overlook it. The reference, then, in English reads:

Shamir, Illana and Shlomo Shavit (General Editors), Encyclopedia of Jewish History: Events and Eras of the Jewish People (Massada Publishers, 1986, Israel) ISBN 0816012202.

For our immediate purpose, what is cited entails a relatively cursory discussion (revolving first sround modern Antisemitism, and second, a history of the Kibbutz Movement), often very instructive in what it dosen't say rather than what it does. I can find more far direct and specialized sources for this/these issue/s, but I didn't feel what I said was that controversial (not that I’m implying that Slim thought it was, I do consider her request to be perfectly legitimate; rather, I mean, in terms of my addition comapared to what it supplanted and supplemented). *** Marx notes (crucially, with the aforementioned mixture of the comedic, tragic, satiric, ironic, et cetera, etc.) and goes on to depict and provide an analysis for the unique economic legacy of the European Jews and relating that to what he felt was the distinction between political and human emancipation. He does mention the Sabbath-Worldly distinction, arguably, precisely in order to avoid certain mischaracterizations. And, after this, he never returns to the topic of 'Jews' ever again. Not to mention that no testimony from people who knew Marx (including those hostile to his views) reveal an antisemitic flavour to anything he said or has written on. Unlike other (more and less questionable) socialists, Marx, in fact, had no need to further revisit the Jewish Question, it (as a particularity) simply is not pertinent for his attempt to study capitalism as a mode of production, a process, etc. Had it not been for that specific discourse with Bauer, it is (counter-factual, yes, but nonetheless) reasonable to postulate that he would not have mentioned it at all. But I digress, as always. Thanks for bearing through my ramblings. El_C 01:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If I could, then, continue my polemic above, and relate it to myself. This is one of the issues I take with additional revisits of the Jewish Question (even if from a certain vantage point may seem politically-progressive). People should read a correct summary of Marx's TJQ, and move on; address it as such when needed, and move on to more universal realms (many things have happned since, yes, above all, the Holocaust; but that can still be explained within such a framework –and– appraoch). And those who are truly progressive (from my standpoint) know this and their actions reflect this understanding very clearly. *** It should not be the emphasis, then, with Jews being singled-out (yet again) to personify a system (and, of course, inherently rather arbitrarily and inaccurately: Marx, Einstein, and others would beg differ, I'm sure), as an excuse to avoid challenging that system; an imeasurably more dangarous aim that requiers much greater forms of sacrifice and struggle, and brings to the fore immense challenges. *** For the racists all of that is inconsequential, since they are so immoral, filled with hatered and devoid of reason. And no matter what you or myself might say on these issues (undoubtedly very different positions and things), they would see it all just the same as a plan for Jewish NWO, etc. They have no need to study history critically, though, no use to tread in waters deep; theirs is the drive for the instant gratification and base convictions of beasts. El_C 10:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * This (TJQ), however, perhaps I should clarify, has to do with the political-economic explanation. Positive cultural qualities should be cherished, that is a part of the universalism I strive toward, as enhancing particular experiences of a people which are worth cherishing. For example, I read Y.D. Berkovitz Pirkey Yaldut (in the source) recently and was so utterly capitvated, I wrote his bio article the very next day (which is, granted, not a very good article; I had little pertinent info, plus I can't write about literature well, anyway), which I think is illustrative of my approach towards this. Hmm, why am I subjecting you to this. I'm not exactly certain, though I have my suspicions(!). At any rate, once again, I offer you my apologies for rambling at such length. I'll try to hold off for a little while till the next incomprehensible, abrupt piece! El_C 11:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hey Jay, this is to say thank you for supporting me in my adminship nomination, and for the kind comments and the moral support beforehand when I was hesitating. I really do appreciate it very much. Now, suddenly all these new buttons have appeared. I'm worried I click on something by accident and cause chaos. ;-) Best, SlimVirgin 04:14, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Abdullah Öcalan to merge with PKK
Can you please reconsider your desicion. The mans life mostly revolved around the organisation. His life basicaly is a very short summary of PKK Activity. His pre organisation life is not significant from any average person. These two articles are also subject to vandalism every here and there it would simplify my workload enforcing a non vandal world if these articles were merged. Thanks Cat chi? 17:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, the discussion is avalible at: Talk:Abdullah Öcalan. Cat chi? 17:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Zionism
Mostly, I hate the "and/or" construct. It's ugly and vague. Let's try to find (a) some real numbers, or (b) a better way to express it otherwise. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Also -- the numbers I've seen show, around the time of the Balfour Declaration, a population of 700,000, of whom 575,000 were Moslems, 75,000 Christians, and 55,000 Jews. That's pretty "overwhelming". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Banning IP: 156.63.190.132
This IP address has been cited for vandalism in the Jew article for editing this in:

"Being the world's most hated andf gay assed religion is a tough job, but the Jews pull it off very well. They first earned their reputation being cheap in the year 112 b.c. Then killed Jesus Christ. Nowadays Jewish bastards are everywhere, mostly living in caves and sewer systems where they feed on crocodile heads and muskrat penises."

Could you initiate a vote to ban user?

Thanks,

Guy Montag 05:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My RFA
Hey wanted to let you know i'm up for Adminship if you want to go vote. Requests_for_adminship/Alkivar  ALKIVAR ™ 05:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Saleel
no it wasn't for you, but you are free to add if you want. Please don't refer to any edit you disaprove of as Vandalism. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:23, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, The First edit is a revert to a verifiably NPOV statement. It included a piece of Vandalism I didn't notice, but which I Cleared with that Second Edit. Please refrain from you disingenuous statements and lies. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:42, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Request for comment re: Wareware
Greetings. :-) Thanks for taking the time to respond and for dropping me a note about the appropriate format requesting action.  Jeeze.  Rather involved -- isn't it?  I'm dealing with some hardware/peripherals issues w/regard to my computer at the moment, that I have to take care of in order to meet a couple of deadlines.  But I'll be on it as soon as I can find the time.  Peace 2 u.  And, again, thanks for taking a few moments to help make Wikipedia a better website, a better community.  I despise this place sometimes, but it's a great idea with great potential -- and some truly marvelous articles.  :-) deeceevoice 23:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Moving Ladino->Ladino_language
Jayjg, I tried to move it, but bcz Ladino_language is already a redirect to Ladino, it won't let anyone but admins make the move. I'm changing the wikilinks that point to Ladino but should point to Ladino_language so that they point to the new page, and hopefully you can take care of moving Ladino to Ladino_language before someone overzealously undoes my changes as double-redirects. Tomer TALK 04:50, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to fix the links, but the going is incredibly slow. As happens far too often, my db transactions aren't going through more than about 10% of the time.  Tomer TALK  05:36, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

While we're working on this, can you move Ladinos to Ladino? I'm changing the relevant links that point to Ladinos so that they point to Ladino now, which will be the new disambig page. Tomer TALK 05:59, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)  PS:  I tried to move it, but ran into the same colliding db entry problem as before. Tomer <sup style="color:#129DBC;">TALK 06:00, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Your call. I've already changed the relevant links, so when you're ready, just remember it needs doing.  :-)  Shavua tov, btw.  Tomer <sup style="color:#129DBC;">TALK  06:08, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * OK Jayjg, I've finished changing all the relevant links for both articles. the disambig at Ladinos needs to be moved to Ladino still.  -t Tomer <sup style="color:#129DBC;">TALK  10:58, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * It looks good. I should have thought to try moving it to a (disambiguation) page myself.  Oh well.  And yes...I also see a whole bunch of false positives on the What Links Here:Ladino page...all of them have Template:Jew or Template:Jewish_language on them.  They still showed up after I changed Ladino to Ladino_language in both templates, and even when I tried removing the wikilinks from them.  I don't know if it's a structural problem w/ the way the db is set up...different machines/drives for templates or whatnot...I'm assuming it's something that will cure itself soon.  :-/  gnite Tomer <sup style="color:#129DBC;">TALK  11:20, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Status Check
Do you have a problem with me sir. I do not like your assumptions. Cat chi? 10:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unblock HappyApple
Jayjg, don't mean to cross your authority, but HappyApple appears not to have violated 3RR, so I'm unblocking. Will protect the article for now. Fuzheado | Talk 01:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Edit counter
It seems to be working again. See [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits.cgi? here]. SlimVirgin 17:06, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Signature
Jay, perhaps you can help me with this. I'd like to have a little superscripted (talk) sign after my signature but can't seem to get it to work. I've followed what seems to be the instructions but I can't be doing it right. I've also tried copying what other editors seem to have written but still nothing. In my preferences, in the section for nickname, I have just SlimVirgin (no brackets). What exactly do I need to add to get a superscripted (talk)? SlimVirgin 17:43, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * I tried to follow the instructions here, which says: "Also you can add a separator, so that the signature looks something like this: — Name | Talk. The code in front of whatever you put in this box can be effectively cancelled putting   at the front of your nick. Thus you can put, for example  ]] &mdash; Name | Talk. You can also check the 'raw signatures' box: in that case no automatic link will be created." When it didn't work, I tried various combinations of square brackets/no brackets. Nothing I tried work, so I've obviously not understood it. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin 17:59, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * There is something weird going on. I entered your suggestion and tested it. The first time, it gave me a superscripted (talk) in black not linked, so I wrote you a note here saying it hadn't work. I previewed that note, and in fact my signature showed it had worked. So I rewrote the note to say thanks, and resigned in, previewed it again, and this time it was a weird mixture of linked and not linked words. So I have no idea. Don't worry about it, as I don't want to take up any more of your time. I'm just going to sign this without previewing, so who knows what will follow this post. ;-) [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin(talk)]] 18:34, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, now it's suddenly working, or it did the last time I signed it. Thank you! Now can you show me how to make the (talk) psychedelic? Just kidding! ;-)  Thanks, SlimVirgin(talk) 18:52, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Golan Heights
Hi, User:Yuber seems to think that the Golan Heights should not be part of Category:Geography of Israel, take a look at his edits...Thanks. IZAK 08:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, since we have placed an RFC some time ago, do you not think it advisable to proceed with other Dispute resolution steps? This was we may arrive at an arbitration decision about the proper application of the Wikipedia Categorization guidelines. You know my position form our Talk discussions, and I would be a lot more comfortable leaving the Israel geography CAT in, or deleting both Israeli and Syrian CATs, if there were an official pronouncement that endorsed one of those positions, and clarified the disputed guideline. What is your own opinion? --AladdinSE 08:12, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing
Thank you for your edits in this article! gidonb 20:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Muscles
Yes, but as you say, tentatively. ;-) There have been so many sockpuppets there, I'm confused as to whether I can block them all indefinitely, or whether I should leave one as the main user account and just block it for 24 hours. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:49, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks Jay. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:58, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
שלום ידיד! אני לא יכול לכתוב בניחותא על נצרים, המילה הזאת מעוללת כל כך באופן רע. אני מצטער מאד. אני חדש כאן, כפי שאתה כבר יודע. נא לעזור הידיד שלך. Halakhic-Jews-Only 00:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. One of the links you recommended does not work. Since you are obviously quite experiences, are you able to rephrase it in a suitable way for wikipaedia?Halakhic-Jews-Only 00:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 :עצה 

שנה את שם המשתמש שלך

.אנא קבל זאת בהבנה

,בברכה

El_C 13:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * So change your name already, Jayjg! ;) El_C 13:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Liberal Democrat (UK)
The issue seems to have resolved itself. --Viriditas | Talk 08:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Yikes! I have not studied Shahak like I have studied Shamir. I don't know enough about Shahak to participate on a meaningful level. I also suspect that I am ambivalent. I am actually very critical of Israel's policies, I just won't tolerate antisemitism in the discussion.--Cberlet 19:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I won't touch Israel Shahak with a bargepole. Shem resha'im yirkov. JFW | T@lk  20:27, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RE: Viewpoint requested
Hah! It looks like I should'nt have either, but it's too late now! Not only did I not know enough about him 'to participate in a meaningful level,' I have never heard of him, ever. He certainly, to my knowledge, isn't particularly notable in Israel. Nothing on .he, got 34 results in google.co.il. I'll have a look at and report back. El_C 22:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, it's difficult to find anything authoritative, or of value for that matter.

One Jewish right-wing Professor (a lecturer from the U.S.) who chooses to remain anonymous speaks very negatively on him as antisemitic, devoting an a paragraph to him in his article featured on Nativ ( שנה שבע עשרה •  גיליון 3-4 (98-99)  •  סיון  תשס"ד  •  יוני  2004 ) entitled "Leftist radicalism in the Hebrew Academy." He says that Sachak promotes a view of Judaism as irrational Goyim hatred, as admirers of Satan. I can translate more from that if you wish.

On the other side, the Institute for Educational Research (in a piece on hate sites) devotes a single sentence to him, saying that he isn't a holocaust deniar nor antisemitic, but Holocaust deniars, antisemites, etc., misquote (ציטוטים מסולפים) him to their ends. 

Mentionned as an aside in Haaretz article, but nothing that seems particularly pertinent for our pruposes (I can translate the excerpt if you wish; it entails criticism from the right which puts him together with Barak, Leybovitz, etc.). 

On Hagada.org (meaning haGada a Ma'aravit, not 'legend'), one Sarban Giyus takes an opposite position (arguing that Shachak and others being unfairly vilified), but again, Shachak is only mentioend as an aside there as well. 

Makor Rishon, an online newspaper I've never heard of, mentions him but in the context of a quote from a Suadi journalist who calls Shachak a "moderate," so that isn't helpful either. 

And that's sums up google.co.il, the rest consists of a no text, three word forum message title mirrored several times, a few links that don't work even in the google cache but seem irrelavent anyway, etc. El_C 23:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, Jay, sorry I couldn't be of more help. Perhaps I was way off with my initial assessment, I don't really know. So I'm pleading ignorance at this point. If there's anything I can do, don't hesitate. El_C 02:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kate's Tools
Regarding your comment about Kate's Tools on SV's talk page, yes, they changed servers, so the link changed as well. --Viriditas | Talk 22:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re: Radio Islam
Looks good to me, though I'm sure our resident Naziphiles will find fault with it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi. I just wanted to thank you for your work on Radio Islam.  I was the second person to edit it after seeing it on RC and was only partially successful in editing away from the POV of the anon who started it.  I am impressed at the state to which you've brought it.  Cheers,   BanyanTree 16:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Moving Krymchaks
Can you please move the Krymchaks article to Krymchak asap? Thanks. Tomer <sup style="color:#129DBC;">TALK 05:18, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * After moving the article, the Krymchak (disambiguation) disambig can be deleted. Tomer <sup style="color:#129DBC;">TALK  05:27, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to get to redoing the many things linking to Krymchaks. I want to give the db time to update the "what links here" page first, since for some reason, it takes time for template links to articles quite a while to update (as we experienced when moving Ladino to Ladino language. Tomer <sup style="color:#129DBC;">TALK 06:29, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, now that I look at that again, I see that there are still ghost links to Ladino, and it's now been several days since we moved that. Do you know who the dba is?  This is a potentially serious logic problem that should be addressed asap.  Tomer <sup style="color:#129DBC;">TALK  06:31, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

circumcision and anti-semitism
Please explain why you just reverted my additions to the article on anti-semitism? Sirkumsize 05:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Because they were, for the most part, a POV rant, and the link was to an article you created that is unrelated and likely to be deleted. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh you and my fucking articles. Okay -- I will fix it.  Please respond to what I wrote on the article's talk page.  Sirkumsize 05:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

genital mutilation :)
Feel free to join in the action on Circumcision and Anti-semitism and the talk page. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  18:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bene Israel
Your attempt at reformatting Bene Israel is good at high resolutions, but it's really bad at 800x600, worse than what was there before. I tried a few things, couldn't find a happy solution; do you have any other ideas? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:33, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I see now why it would create a problem at lower resolutions. It was awful at higher resolutions.  I'm not that knowledgeable on all these wiki-format tricks; the only thing I can think would help would be making the article much longer (i.e. more information on the Bene Israel), so everything fits. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  22:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * That may be the only solution in the long run: the tables are simply outweighing the content there. I certainly don't know enough about them to add much, though. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:53, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Advice
Just thought I'd say that I find some of your comments edging towards the abusive, and in any case decidedly unworthy of an admin. And can I further suggest toning down the conspiracy angle a bit until you can produce some actual evidence of bad faith editing by me or anyone else. --Gene_poole 02:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Vandalise this page"
I think someone's been screwing around. It no longer says "edit this page", it now says "vandalise this page" (it took me 3 tries to spell "vandalize" with an "s"...) What's going on? Tomer <sup style="color:#129DBC;">TALK 02:30, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * It did a minute ago, but it's gone now. Shame. LOL! SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:34, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * It now reads edit, in bold, rather than edit this page, non-bold... someone is clearly playing with the code, but why? edit this page is clear, concise, and informative.

Koestler and 13th Tribe
I think it's a good idea to have an article on the 13th tribe, as you suggest. I don't have time at the moment but in the next couple of weeks hopefully I can start one. --Briangotts 16:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disagree with reason given for a deletion
Jayjg,

You deleted my addition which referred to Herzl's opinion on the Dreyfus Affair. I do not agree with your reason for doing so.

Though Zionism existed before the publication of Der Judenstaat, it is without doubt one of the most important documents in the history of the movement. Indeed, it can be argued that of this treatise was born the "modern" movement and thus the State of Israel. So why is the fact that its author's sudden volte-face in support for Zionism may have been based in substantial part on an arrogance of his own holding (and a non-acceptance that a Jew in a position of trust could possibly commit any crime, a virtue - it is implied in his words - he considers "specifically Jewish") not appropriate here?

I believe your opinion that this is peripheral underestimates the importance of Herzl in modern Zionism. I attempted to demonstrate that his own thinking on the subject may have been flawed and based in some prejudice of his own. Is this not relevant to the subject under which it was added?

Regards,

Jay K.

Blocking a range of IP addresses
Is it possible to effectively block a range of IP addresses ? For several days we're struggling with an anonymous vandal who deletes other ppl's contents, refuses any discussion and attempts to offend other wikipedians. See Vilnius or Lithuania. He uses a dynamic IP allocation from 85.206.192.*, 85.206.193.*, 85.206.194.*, 85.206.195.* ranges. From what I've seen none of these addresses have been used for other purpose than this vandalism, so blocking them would do more good than harm. Obviously we could use our time in a more productive manner than reverting his changes. Any advice ? Lysy 08:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Have reported on Vandalism in progress, and explaned the case there. Hopefully this helps. Thanks, Lysy 18:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IP Address 85.224.177.65 has been engaged in an edit war with most members in the Ustase page, editiing out information without discussion. He has been warned various times that he is violation of the rules, and he is at least in violation of the three revert rule. Maybe he is a clueless newbie but could you please check out the article, and if see if there has been a violation?

Thanks,

Guy Montag 20:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ip Address 80.58.14.42 is a vandal. A rote check in history will note his vandalism of the Jew article and other article. He is probably a neo nazi from stormfront. Please check it out.

Guy Montag 06:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:STP listed as vandal
User:STP has in fact been cited for vandalism by User:ElTyrant, see Vandalism in progress and is suspected by both User:SlimVirgin and User:Jayjg of being a sock puppet of  banned User:Alberuni see User talk:STP  and Mossad "Project"? No, it was Mossad terrorism. UserSTP is also guilty of using anti-Semitic slurs, such as: "traitor Jews can't be trusted" ; "Judaism is a cult but Jewish cultists, of course, deny it" and added the blood libel: ":Ethnocentric Jews killed Jesus 2000 years ago and in the past century they have killed thousands of Palestinians, Lebanese, Jordanians and other innocent victims in their quest to maintain their racist state." , and again repeated it "The Jews killed Jesus, among many others" ! So who is this guy to "complain" when he should be booted off Wikipedia ASAP. IZAK 12:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thought you might be intetrested
Have a look at the following VFD: TDC 13:53, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms of the government of Israel portrayed as anti-Semitism
I wasn't necessarily saying that the Nation of Islam's criticisms' of Israel were mistaken as anti-Semitism specifically, I meant something more like "often, criticisms of the government of Israel are portrayed as anti-Semitism by supporters of the government of Israel". Here are some citations    there are plenty more. zen master   T  20:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with NOI's statements about Jews? Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * My point is the Nation of Islam has also criticized the government of Israel, generally speaking, such criticism is often portrayed by supporters of Israel's government to be anti-Semitism. So it's relevant and citable for inclusion in the article and balances out the notion the article currently conveys that the Nation of Islam is somehow "rabidly" anti-Semitic, which I don't believe there is consensus for. At least *some* of the anti-Semitic allegations against the Nation of Islam have to instead be criticism of the government of Israel, would you agree?  On another talk page you argued Jews and Israel should be closely coupled together, now you are arguing they should be separated? zen master    T  20:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all you'd have to find NOI's criticism of the government of Israel, then you'd have to find a Jewish group which actually responded to them by calling them anti-Semitic. Do you have any any example of that? Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  23:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No, as long as it was a generic statement that criticisms of Israel are often claimed to be anti-Semitic remarks, for political reasons, then that would be ok.  What remarks from the NOI of "anti-Semitic" precisely, the slavery bloodsuckers quotations is arguably not (if the full context is presented).  Why does that article include info on Christians and hating white people if the article is about anti-Semitism and the NOI? zen master    T  01:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Incorrect; unless the material is quoted in the context it is original research, specifically the section that says it introduces an original argument purporting to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position described in the article You have provided no evidence that Jewish groups have even noticed the statements made by the NOI about Israeli government policies, much less equated them with anti-Semitism.  Nor have you provided any evidence for some sort of "context" for the "bloodsuckers" comment; exactly what context do you imagine there is for I don't know all Jews. If you can introduce me to some good Jews and find a good Jew that is not a bloodsucker, I would be happy to meet them.? And the section in question is about the relationship of the NOI with Jews and Christians, so of course it has a paragraph on Christians too. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  01:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Can either of you you fill me in on the "bloodsuckers" comment? El_C 01:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I quoted one in my previous comment. Before the Million Man March he called Jews "financial bloodsuckers" who practiced a "gutter religion" Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  02:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe the bloodsuckers comment was refering to Jews' alleged involvement in the slave trade. zen master   T  02:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I overlooked that, Jayjg. STP, I highly doubt you and your antisemitic troll comments are welcome on this talk page. El_C 02:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not original research to state anywhere in a relevant article: "Generally speaking, criticism of the government of Israel is often portrayed by supporters of the government of Israel to be anti-Semitism". Please justify your statement logically, how exactly is a general, factual, neutrally presented, citable sentence original research?? I already provided you with citations for such a general statement, it would be entirely justified to put that statement and those citations in most every anti-Semitic article (anywhere it is relevant and balances things). Your POV is so ingrained you fail to realize you are oozing it. zen master   T  02:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * First of all, you have mistaken a claim for a fact. Second, you have not cited it.  Third, it has nothing to do with the Nation of Islam, or the relationship between the NOI and Jewish groups.  One cannot "balance things" by inserting original research on a different topic. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  02:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Logically (having not read the article in question), I agree. You can't seriously expect to put "that statement and those citations in most every anti-Semitic article[s] [sic.]" El_C 02:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If an article is alleging someone or something is anti-Semitic then it would make sense to add such a sentence if a lot of what they have been saying is actually criticism of the government of Israel. zen master   T  03:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Since you have provided no evidence of that claim, and since the examples themselves used in the related article have nothing to do with criticism of the government of Israel, it makes no sense at all. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * When allegations of anti-Semitism are obviously POV (for example when users disallow the word "allegations" in a title) such a sentence is a good first step at balancing POV. zen master   T  03:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Your arguments are mistaken, against policy, and repetitive. It is your mistaken contention that the lack of the word "allegation" makes an article POV, and Wikipedia specifically does not allow the kind of original research you are advocating. As well, I will no longer respond to arguments which have been made and refuted at least twice before; please come up with something new.  Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  03:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From what I read, it seems to be a crude and unencyclopedic approach to pov balance, an approach which strikes me as intellectually careless and lazy. El_C 03:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, not including "allegations" in a title is intellectually careless, and dangerous. zen master   T  04:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Or, conversely, "allegations" could be seen as an unencyclopedic quick fix for many contentious articles. El_C 04:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Moving towards neutrality should not be seen as a quick fix, it's a legitimate and necessary fix. You seem to be implying that many "contentious" articles have a "right" and a "wrong" side? zen master    T  04:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This is becoming circular, your own premise presupposes the answer to the question you raise. I think I made my position clear enough on the matter. El_C 04:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vilna Gaon anon
Hey, have you glanced yet at the contributions made by our favourite and ever-so-talkative, anti-Vilna anonymous editor? El_C 04:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Never mind, I might have mistaken him/her for someone else. Suddenly I'm not able to find the pertinent reference. El_C 04:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ḥ
shipe. lemme try the unicode template and see whether that works. what version of IE are you using? Tomer <sup style="color:#129DBC;">TALK 05:02, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * So, I tried the unicode template, and it works, but it adds an extra space before the letter beforehand. I don't know enough about how at template is set up to be able to fix it, nor to take the time to learn at this juncture.  Sorry.  Tomer <sup style="color:#129DBC;">TALK  05:06, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * And you can call me Tomer :-p Tomer <sup style="color:#129DBC;">TALK  05:07, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...interesting...it shows up as a box in the contents box on your page, but it shows up correctly as the header for this section on your talk page. perhaps it's got nothing to do with the template. Tomer <sup style="color:#129DBC;">TALK  05:09, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

From IZAK regarding User:STP
Hi, please see and add your comments if you like at Requests for arbitration regarding my above alert to you about User:STP. Thank you. IZAK 05:21, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nahum Goldmann
A new article, Nahum Goldmann, has been created as a translation from the German Wikipedia article. I've copy-edited it (the translation was a bit messy in places), but I'm unsure about standard English forms of some of the terms, especially organisations. Could you take a look at it? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hebron
I am having some problems with a poster in the Hebron article. AladdinSE keeps reverting to a POV version of the article where the host image of the Cave of the Patriarchs is entititled "Abrahimi Mosque." I for one believe that because it was the Cave of the Patriarchs before Muslims conquered it in 638, it should be continued to be called Cave of the Patriarchs with the mention that a mosque now exists there after the Muslim conquest.

There is also a mention of "all settlements by jews in the occupied territories are considered illegal by the UN", which is a blatantly false claim. Anyways, I need some help before it turns into a full fledged revert war because he reverts without explanation.

Thanks in advance,

19:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Guy Montag has misquoted. The sentence reads: "All Israeli settlements in territories occupied in 1967 are deemed illegal by the United Nations." If this user thinks this statement is blatantly false, he/she needs to take a history course. This user wants only The Cave of the Patriarchs as the caption. My version contains both. Decide for yourself which is the NPOV version. Lastly, the claim that I don't explain is false, and can be disproved from the edit summary history. I provide as much revert explanation, and more, than he/she does. --AladdinSE 20:09, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

It's the same picture its just that the name entitled Abrahimi Mosque even though its the cave. Also, I need a third opinion on the near revert war I am having with Aladdin. I will stop edits, for now until I get a third opinion on my edits, and a compromise... preferebly from you.

Hoping for a quick solution,

Guy Montag 20:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

strange diatribe
I got a strange diatribe on my user discussion page from "Bill Cannon". It was unusually vitriolic for a new users with virtually no other edits to his name. I've elected to hash it out on the race/discussion page since my reverting a circularly self-destructive edit was the cause of the diatribe. Just curious as to who "Bill Cannon" is. P0M 20:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nahum Goldmann
Thanks for getting involved; it looks much more accurate now (though, of course, the whole problem was that I couldn't be sure what was accurate and what wasn't...). Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * And thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * My User-page vandal (69.208.220.105 (talk · contributions) and 66.203.184.90 (talk · contributions)) is presumably someone who's run up against me when using another IP address or User name; I've had no dealings with either of those two IP addresses, though the former is a committed vandal, with an obsession with the sandox... Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 13:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And thank you for supporting my adminship &mdash; I vow to use my super powers (well, my mop and bucket) for good not evil. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1956 war has more references than Suez War
If readers want to look up the history of Arab-Israeli wars they should be able to look up 1948 war, 1956 war, 1967 war, 1973 war in an index etc. They shouldn't have to know Yom Kippur War, Six Day War, Suez War by their nicknames. How will they know the order of the wars if they are unfamiliar? Try to use a little logic in this encyclopedia instead of familiar provincialisms. --Dogtag 16:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You wrote to me that "And finally, "Suez War" gets 11,300 Google hits vs 282 for "1956 Arab-Israel war" but you conveniently neglected to point out that "1956 war" gets 15,200 Google hits. If a reader looks at the category "Arab-Israeli wars", how does he know what the order of these wars is? Furthermore, "Yom Kippur War" is the Israeli name for the war. You can be sure that the Arabs don't call it that. Is this an Israeli encyclopedia? The title of the article should be neutral, not reflecting one side or the other. The year of the war is a good way to do that rather than adopting the Israeli name for the war. --Dogtag 16:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You wrote to me that "The problem with categories is that the only allow alphabetical listing; nothing can be done about that." But that isn't a problem. Look at category arab-israeli wars. There are articles under "1" for 1948 war. If all the wars were titled by year these would be in the correct order instead of named with nicknames that have no logical order. You also wrote to me "As for "Yom Kippur war", that is the English name for the war, not the Israeli name. Israelis give it a Hebrew name." That is a false argument. The Israelis call the 1948 war "the war of independence" even though they ALSO have a Hebrew name for the war. Wikipedia does not call it the war of independence because that is the Israeli perspective name for it. Wikipedia names it the 1948 war becuase that is more neutral. Similarly, the Yom Kippur War is the Israeli perspective name - even though it is in English. The Arab perspective name is Octoiber war or Ramadan War. The article about the 1973 war should be named the 1973 Arab-Israeli war with redirects from other names for the sake of neutrality, unless this encyclopedia is supposed to reflect an Israeli perspective. --Dogtag 17:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You wrote to me "Regarding categories, the purpose of categories is not to provided chronological summaries of topics, so your complaint that they do not do so is moot." It might not be the purpose of categories but it will add to the educational value of the description of Arab-Israeli wars if the chronological order of those wars is clear to novice readers.

You also wrote to me, "As well, as I've explained before, Wikipedia policy says that articles should use common names. In English, the common name is the "Yom Kippur war"; that gets 106,000 Google hits, vs. 9,440 for "1973 Arab-Israeli war". Please stop trying to inject politics into a matter of common English usage and Wikipedia policy". It is not injecting politics to struive for neutrality. on the contrary, your stubborn insistence on using the Israeli name for the wars is an example of injecting politics. Encarta even makes clear "Because the conflict began on the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, and took place during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, the war is called the Yom Kippur War by Israelis, and the Ramadan War, or the October War, by Arabs." . It is an Israeli perspective for Wikipedia to title this article "Yom Kippur War" just as it would be an Arab perspective to name it "Ramadan War". The neutral perspective is "1973 Arab-Israeli War". The last formulation also has the advantage of logical, chronological and neutral consistency with naming the wars after the years of the wars 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 Arab-Israeli war, etc. Instead of naming the wars the way Israelis or Arabs do. The number of Google hits for Yom Kippur war is not relevant. (Many of those hits are from Jewish history and Israeli websites, by the way). You ignore the number of Google hits when you want to ignore the fact that "1956 war" has more Google hits than "Suez Crisis". So that is another false argument. Please stop promoting pro-Israeli bias into Wikipedia article names and accept a neutral encylcopedia that serves all English speakers, not just Israelis and Israeli sympathizers. --Dogtag 20:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

again Anti-Seitism versus Anti-ZIonism
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=7608 Making any statement like this is always branded as Anti-Semitism whil at best it is Anti-ZIonist (or simply the truth !). Now PLEASE change this Anti-Semitism crap about Islam !