User talk:Jiujitsuguy/Archives/2011

reply to email
Concerning the editor you emailed me about, I see no reason to waste time on the matter if there are no further edits from the account. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi.

I very appreciate your efforts for unblocking me. After my last appeal was declined on 18/10/2010, I have become so desperate of Wikipedia, so I hadn't been checking my user account for few months and didn't notice I was unblocked only few days later. Megaidler (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Witnessing history
Standing amongst a crowd demanding Mubarak's downfall, a man who commanded Egypt's Air Force against Israel, with occasional chanting of anti-Israel slogans, and overlooked by crewmen in the very same Patton tanks and M113 carriers the Egyptian army fought against, I couldn't help but feel history imposing its irony in the scene before me.

I guess I'm writing this here because given our knowledge of this region's recent history – however colliding our perspectives may be – I believed you'd be able to conjure the picture I was in and feel the same. --Sherif9282 (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I kind of share in your feeling, Sherif. I've got to add to the historical perspective Mubarak's injury in the attack on Anwar Sadat. I have also noted Stars of David drawn on abandoned police vehicles... Do you think the regime will fall? If so, will the successors maintain past agreements? JG, sorry for intrusion. - BorisG (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise Boris, you're always welcome on my page. Sherif, I agree that it is a bit surreal. I can only add that I hope that all works out for the best in Egypt and that there will be no more bloodshed. Hope all is well for you and your family. Best regards--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely Boris. I'll head to your talk page I guess.
 * It is quite surreal indeed, JG. Thank you for your words, I really appreciate it. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

email
Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * email checked--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ford Letter
Nice addition! Ha-Am (ve'Dod Shmuel) im Ha-Golan. Chesdovi (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Logan
Add the cites, to the talkpage, it is one unnamed report imo Off2riorob (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Civilian casualty ratio
You may want to look at the RS:N for it/talk page which rejects that line of thinking. If you want to take it back to RS:N, go for it. Sol (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Enforcement.
--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop commenting in AE "results" section
That section is for uninvolved administrators. Your commenting there is improper and disruptive.

Supreme Deliciousness said so, you re-posted there. Any further edits in that section by you will result in a short block.

I am going to move your comments to the bottom of your main response comment.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem George. All I ask is that you read the comments before moving them--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I did read them, but that doesn't matter. They absolutely do not belong in that section.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

To bolster your argument. Of course it is of major concern to most of us whether or not Hitler had Jewish roots. Was this edit during a topic ban? It is more than a little offensive. 172.190.223.247 (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Which edit are you referring to. Many of SupremeD's edits are over the top. Can you point to the specific diff please?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I thought I had. His attempt to include the obscure and fringey theory that Hitler had Jewish genes in the main article on Hitler. It just seems to Jewish me that he is trying to say "Hitler"="Jewish." This must be disconcerting to the Jewish editors in the I-P conflict area, as I see it is to you. 172.190.223.247 (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that you shouldn't comment in that section. But the ineptitude of any admin to do what they volunteered to do makes me no care. You wouldn't have to comment there if they would read the diffs you provided in the first place. Hell, you even had to repeat your answer to the same question since they did not read through the conversation. Hey here is an idea for the AE admins: Don't try to judge conflicts for fun. Do it because you want to better the project. They can all rot if they want to play contrary games. Go to law school in your next life if you want to be a defense attorney. And don't cry about being a volunteer when you get off on it. I volunteer to play Mega Man but it does not mean I do not enjoy it.
 * Supreme Deliciousness is the problem just like Nableezy was. And both of them will come back sooner or later and make the topic area even worse. Tag teaming my ass. I have disagreed with you, JJG, enough times that the assertion is absurd. I do like you and agree with your POV, though. At least I can fully man up to that.Cptnono (talk) 08:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You may want to bring up SD wp:forum shopping all over admins talk pages.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Supreme Deliciousness
Hello. I recommend that you take the matter to AN/I or contact another administrator. I would take action myself, except my activity in Israel-Palestine matters makes me WP:INVOLVED. You can also e-mail User:Oversight and ask them to permanently delete any edits that reveal confidential information. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what this section is about but good form on your part, MS. Thanks for being straight and admitting to being involved. Also, my bad bringing up the GA at AE. Kind of sullied it. And since this is JJG's page: What's up, badass? Hope all is well. Even with all this AE stuff you have turned out to be a perfectly fine editor. I do see your POV but you know that. As long as you keep it on the talk page then it is fine. At least you tried to get an article up to standard instead of focusing on junk. If you do get topic banned (I'm looking at one, too!) I say screw it. No indef (I assume) so we'll both be back and things will work out OK enough. Maybe neither of us will get topic banned but it is a reminder either way to be even more careful in the topic area. It is like pulling teeth but that is the price we pay for not being professional journalists or writers. And just to be honest: if this was an email it would be filled with cussing and even worse... but it isn't. Cheers, dude.Cptnono (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Malik and Cptnono. I appreciate your advice and support. This outing thing has got me really bumed out. I'm thinking of just retiring. It's really not worth all the aggravation. Whatever happens, Wikipedia has got to find a better way to deal with people who have no respect for the personal lives of others. It's quite sad.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You aren't going anywhere. Your feelings are too strong and you believe this medium can be skewed too much to allow you otherwise. Maybe you should go away. Take a break and not worry about it. And/or maybe you should alter your editing completely to make sure you are not put in this positions again. Whatever your decision is, SD and Nebleezy trying to out you further (you were already outed before) was bad form. Don;t resort tot that crap.Cptnono (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement topic ban: Arab-Israeli conflict
For misrepresentation of sources and persistent ideological POV-pushing across many articles, as explained here, in application and enforcement of WP:ARBPIA, you are topic-banned (per WP:TBAN) from the Arab-Israeli conflict for six months.  Sandstein  13:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow! Your decision is the blindsided equivalent of a sucker punch. From the beginning, you’ve made no secret of your desire to forgo any action against SD and to sanction me. You were absent from these discussions for a number of days and during your absence, different, newer diffs were introduced and more admins joined this thread, intelligently and thoroughly debating the issues presented. In your haste to sanction me, you’ve completely ignored and disregarded the views of at least four admins who suggested equal if not greater sanctions for SD. By your own admission, you neglected to read my posts and forced me to post twice and sometimes three times until you acknowledged them. In desperation, I had to post in the admin section until I got your attention. You completely ignored OUTING efforts by SD. In sum, your decision was arbitrary and capricious and demonstrates contempt for the views of your fellow admins. It also demonstrates an acute laziness on your part for failing to thoroughly review the diffs presented. Most importantly, by ignoring egregious OUTING efforts by SD as well as his inability to acknowledge wrong-doing for his actions, it represents the callous way in which regard the privacy rights of others. You should be stripped of your administrative tools.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comeback?
You have been contributing on Wikipedia for almost two years. At this stage, editing kinda becomes a habit. In this respect, I was sort of hoping that the so-called "Wikimania-syndrom" sooner or later would strike you, and you will think: "You know what? Screw this entire topic-ban. It will expire in six months anyway". When those six months are gone, I bet you just can't help from not breaking the habit. At least, I hope I'm right, and that you will regret your withdrawal within a matter of time. Until then: Cheers! With regards, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Your e-mail
I dislike having to use e-mail, it's intransparent. Please make your request onwiki, on my talk page. Thanks,  Sandstein   23:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. In reply to your second e-mail, as I said, I am ready to lift the topic ban after a substantial period of unproblematic editing by you in other topic areas. If you disagree, you can appeal the ban to WP:AE or the Arbitration Committee. As concerns the article you mention in your e-mail, Tel Zayit, it does not seem to relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict and therefore you may edit it without violating your topic ban, unless you introduce material related to the conflict.  Sandstein   05:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay but as noted, due to RL, I won't be able to do anything until early June.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

My talk page
While it is mildly amusing to be charged with hypocrisy by you, it is not something that I want to deal with. I am having a serious conversation with somebody, so kindly leave me alone.  nableezy  - 02:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you really want to go this way? If so, you may want to consider whether or not that edit is a violation of your current topic ban. And whether or not "one of the most adversarial editors in the I-A topic area" should request that ban be enforced.  nableezy  - 04:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have scrupulously held to the ban's provisions. I have not edited any article or article talk page nor have I commented directly on any enforcement action, AE, ANI, SPI or otherwise dealing with the subject matter to which the ban pertains. If I thought it was a violation, I would not have posed the question to an admin who arbitrates enforcement actions in the topic area. But if you feel that this is yet another opportunity for you to rid yourself of what you perceive to be an adversary, then give it your best shot. I really couldn't give a rat's ass what you do--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats nice. Ill keep that in mind. Bye.  nableezy  - 05:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE. Also, dont modify others comments as you did here. As this is your talk page you are free to remove whatever comment you wish. You may not however otherwise manipulate others comments. Ive reverted your strike out. Bye.  nableezy  - 03:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a note
I hope this is taken in the right spirit. I noted in that complaint about you, a diff is given showing that you asked for a citation re Mecom on a page outside your ban, where you are free to edit. I have the requested info, but I think it would lead to suggestions that in trying to fix it I would be in violation of the terms of my own ban. I could keep, as I usually do, mum. But the date there is screwed up, and that's possibly why you couldn't find any relevant info. The date was 18 December 1964 (not 1965, as the page presently has it). In any case, the details of the incident can be found in the following RS:-

(a) William Joseph Burns, Economic aid and American policy toward Egypt, 1955-1981, SUNY Press, 1985 p.158

(b) H. W. Brands, The foreign policies of Lyndon Johnson: beyond Vietnam, Texas A&M University Press, 1999 p.152 If all's okay feel free to use this stuff. Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Result of WP:AE
Per this AE thread, your existing topic ban by Sandstein is extended by two months. The previous terms continue in effect. Per WP:TBAN you may not edit on the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, or comment about the behavior of editors who work on those articles. The original ban was for six months starting on 4 March 2011. The new expiry date will be 4 November 2011. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a bummer, JJG. Two months isn't that much longer and if you take it to AE you can probably get it reduced by 75% since they are all talk and no bite ;) All kidding aside, hope everything else is going well.Cptnono (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * , regarding this diff, would you say that the user's WikiLove message to you was meant in earnest or that it was a veiled jibe issuing from a place of malice? (I'm not that familiar with the circumstances and terms of your I/P sanctions, so feel free not to respond to my query if there's a chance it could be used against you.)—Biosketch (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review for Yom Kippur War
nominated Yom Kippur War for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. You are receiving this message because you have been identified as one of the top five editors of the article based on edit counts. Brad (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Daniel R. Schwartz
Hey, I notice you've recently been expanding the Agrippa I article. Thanks to a gift certificate from work I recently acquired an annotated translation into Hebrew of 2 Maccabees by Daniel R. Schwartz. I wonder if you're familiar with his biography of Agrippa I (1990, according to Google Books). It doesn't appear to have been cited anywhere in the article. I've started a draft on Schwartz at User:Biosketch/Daniel R. Schwartz. If you find his book on Agrippa useful, I'd appreciate if you could help expand Schwartz's article too.—Biosketch (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Ilya Grad
Saw you note on Ed's page. I added some detail to the Ilya Grad. For interest, the AXN fighter profiles are at and he is #6. I haven't been watching the show but I do remember when it started I happened to walk past the TV just as they were showing someone...it may have been him...with his T shirt censored. It caught my eye, piqued my interest, but then I forgot about it. Perhaps it had an Israeli flag on it...I couldn't find anything in google though.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. As for the T-shirt, I don't know what Malaysia's FCC equivalent allows on air and it could have been any number of things but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it was in fact, a flag. After all, a viewer could have been blinded by it :)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

RE:Operation Rhodes
Thanks for the kind words and a good job to you too on the Danny Matt article. I've listed it on WikiProject Israel/New articles. Poliocretes (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Katzrin
If you do not self-revert by the time I finish typing the AE request you will be reported.  nableezy  - 00:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And done. Ill give you a few more minutes.  nableezy  - 00:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:AE  nableezy  - 00:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

More drama for the drama lovers
I'm sorry you are at AE, dude. I love you as any guy can love another guy without making it weird (not that there is anything wrong with the other way). I think it is lame that you just got tit-for-tatted. ARBPIA3 and we are all banned? It will be fun that way.Cptnono (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Enjoy your ban. It is obvious that T. Canens has made up his mind on how to respond. I probably shouldn't comment on how the section above had a much different mindset from him since it would be just assumption and might come close to breaching my interaction ban. The guy is bent towards being more forgiving to certain editors while ignoring valid requests (or at least valid enough to warrant some sort of not-snide-but-not-useful-in-anyway-whatsoever comment) from others. Nothing you can do at this point.Cptnono (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding User:Timotheus Canens, I feel the time has come to take a more direct approach to dealing with the problem. As I've been the one most affected by his behavior at AE, it wouldn't make much sense for me to take action on my own, though. Should I start listing diffs here? Cptnono's comments basically echo what I think, but I'm convinced that with what's been happening recently there's a strongly compelling case to be made that he shouldn't be arbitrating cases in the I/P topic area anymore.—Biosketch (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Operation Volcano
Good job! Alas, I can't say I have anything to add. My knowledge of the retribution operations leaves a lot to be desired. I must shamefully admit not to have heard of "Volcano" until you created the article. :-) Poliocretes (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Settlements
I see that you have started going through the settlements articles adding something that wasn't part of the agreed consensus statement. You may want to take that to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues to get confirmation that it's okay before you continue. I doubt that anyone would object to an additional source but I've been wrong before many times.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not the first editor to do it and won't be the last. I can only assume you gave others on your preferred side a friendly reminder when they interpret the wording of something that is obviously broken.Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't changed a thing to the wording. Not one iota. I left it precisely as is. If anything, I've improved on it by adding sources. So what exactly is the issue?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Cptnono, it's true that there are cases where existing references that were there before the agreement have been retained. I think I've even retained some myself if they were specific to the settlement. There may be cases where new refs have been added to the lead statement post-agreement that I haven't seen other than JJGs. As for your other point, I assume you mean the discussions between Biosketch and Nableezy about how to handle the consensus lead statement for outposts that I saw taking place somewhere sometime ago. I didn't follow it but I assume it was resolved amicably as I haven't seen edit warring/AE reports.
 * @JJG, yes, I can read. What exactly is the issue ? Possibly no issue, and I wouldn't disgree that by adding a source you have improved it. However, another way of looking at it is that there is an agreed standard statement with an agreed standard reference that has deployed to all articles per the centrally agreed discussions. You have changed it. That may or may not be a problem. Therefore it would be wise to post something at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues to at least inform everyone what you are doing.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sean, do you see anything in this consensus closing statement that prevents the adding of reliable sources? The closing statement refers to "wording" only and mentions nothing of sources. Like I said, if anything, adding sources merely serves to bolster the consensus statement. Adding reliable sources is what we expect of good editors. I know your intentions are good but you have me scratching my head here.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, there is nothing about adding additional reliable sources. However, the consensus outcome specifically endorses "Proposal 2", which includes the BBC source, so it's not quite the case that it mentions nothing of sources. Search for "2. The BBC source[22] is acceptable in all articles regardless of if it specifically mentions the settlement or not. This is often frowned upon across the project so editors should consider adding a hidden comment or talk page section referencing this discussion" in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive. Legality of Israeli settlements. That's why when the consensus statement was deployed to articles it included that source and only that source. Of course there are thousands of reliable sources that could be included but that was the only one that was approved as standard in that discussion. Obviously it's up to you what you do but I see these kind of changes as potentially destabilizing and I don't see a good reason not to just make a note of it at the IPCOLL page to avoid potential problems.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

ACIG
ACIG is a WP:SPS and is not peer-reviewed and therefore does not qualify as a WP:RS. That article also promises to follow up with the Israeli part of the story (which it doesn't), and therefore also represents a POV. I have used ACIG in my a few of my articles in the past, but only when I have corroborating evidence from offline or Hebrew sources. A very long time ago I used to post on their forum, but quit after 9/11 when some nasty rumors about Jews did not elicit the response I expected from the administrators. It has only gone downhill since. Poliocretes (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunate remark
Your recent edit at the talk page of User:Supreme Deliciousness will not win any friends or influence people. Topic bans are given for a reason. Seems to be an example of WP:BATTLE editing. on your part. If your only purpose on Wikipedia is to carry on a struggle against the spokesmen for the other side, people may get tired of you. EdJohnston (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ed. JJG, chill out man, do you really need to waste your time arguing and fighting with other editors on Wikipedia? You could spend your editing time better than that. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

you have a new email
check your email
 * Checked--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

AE is not a battleground
Just to insure all involved individuals are duly-warned I am informing you, as I did Nableezy and Netzer, to avoid more battleground-type behavior on AE. Do not bring up irrelevant cases or make uncivil comments in a discussion over an AE case.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a warning is absurd. Who made you the policeman here? Is TDA a sock account for EdJohnston? --Shuki (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am appealing to the editors involved, like JJG, to avoid escalating the situation. That is in the best interests of all the editors involved.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Although your intent might be sound, people do not respond well to "warnings". This is especially true when it comes from someone who is not in any position to make anything more than an observation.Cptnono (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So you understand I am warning these editors in lieu of going to ANI. I figured it best to advise the editors against continuing such behavior rather than immediately get admins involved.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that your wording does not have any positive influence on the situation. Are you attempting to actually engage JJG in discussion or are you simply crossing the t's and dotting the i's in perpetration for more battleground behavior? Best wishes to you if it is the former.Cptnono (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hilarious. - BorisG (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would call it hypocritical on my part actually :D . I've been in enough spats in the topic are to understand that you get more with honey than with vinegar. Cptnono (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)