User talk:John Bahrain

Welcome! Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Katr67 (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

J Street
Thanks for the Barnstar and keep up the good work on this article. All the best,SelfEvidentTruths (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC) I think it might be time to help update the J Street page. Check out the stuff on their website... 70.19.68.110 (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Disinvestment from Israel
This is a great start, but ... can you find any arguments con? Bearian (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * O.K., I placed a senetence about "subject to much controversy, including both praise and criticism" in the lede. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Every sentence is now cited. Looks good to me.  Sorry for the bother. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This submission at DYK has been queried at the DYK suggestions page. You will need to respond before the article can be promoted, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Blockage/Blockade of the Gaza Strip
Hi, John. I wanted to let you know that for non-controversial moves like the one you requested at WP:RM, you can simply list them under the Uncontroversial proposals section, as they don't require any discussion. That way, you can ensure that those who monitor the requested moves page can more quickly fix the issue with the title. I've moved the page to the correct location, but I just wanted to let you know for future use. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian sanctions articles
I don't object to a separate article on the Gaza blockade, but I'm worried the new title for the original article may be misleading, as it implies the sanctions imposed in 2006 have ended. They have been eased, but Israel still has not returned all the withheld tax revenues. I'm not sure but I think the banking restrictions are still in effect, too. Sanguinalis (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I am not fully informed of the situation. Please change it back then.  --John Bahrain (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

HonestReporting
I respect your judgement in removing the new section I inserted at HonestReporting. But (other than the "Controversy" title, which I'm unsure of) it seems to me that something of that kind definitely belongs in there. HR makes these claims as part of its regular activities (I see 9 articles they have attacking JH), but JH's position, at least in this case, is clear and defensible. There seems no point in an article that doesn't document what HR is doing. PRtalk 15:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Skype
Please check the diskussion page of Skype, security issues German wire tapping! I'm just a passer by, from Germany, so I could read that original paper, but my enlish is no good enogh to correct the article... maybe You like to...--Manorainjan (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West
Nice. The Disclaimer section needs more than Khaleel's statement. The JTA quote may better suit a section on the interviews than on the disclaimer. -- davidz (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi John,

As much as I worry that the Controversy section becomes a "pov magnet" and distorts any attempt at a neutral article, the University of Florida bit does seem to go there. The length of the paragraph presents a weight problem. It needs rewriting. Do you think it relevant to the movie? It does represent some of what has happen around this movie. Or do we dispense with it once the article gets better content?

You wrote on the talk page: "I don't think your going to win this argument alone because of the dynamics at play." What dynamics at play? For what it's worth: I'm not trying to argue or to win. I try to discuss policy to get a neutral article structure. Policies and guidelines seem useful standards, especially in controversial circumstances, and perhaps the only standards editors can agree on.

You also wrote: "The information is all still there." Not all. And where does matter. -- davidz (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI
User talk:Lansing3456 -- davidz (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that the user blanked the talk page. In case you missed it, the PA came from a suspected sockpuppet. -- davidz (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP
Hello John,

Wondering if you could give me a piece of advice: User:Jayjg has deleted text I've included in the biographies of Jonathan Chait and Bret Stephens on the basis that these are WP:BLP & WP:UNDUE - see Talk:Bret Stephens. It seems fairly abitrary to me, and using this justification one could pretty much delete any comment from any living persons biography. Do you know anyone who could advise me about this and as to what action I could take?

Thanks,

Colombo Man (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, John. But I think we should talk this one through - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States#Bret_Stephens_in_the_Media_and_public_discourse

Colombo Man (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement
As you've been involved in the dispute with over Israel-United States military relations, I thought you should know that I've reported his continued edit-warring and assumptions of bad faith (in breach of arbitration sanctions) at Arbitration enforcement. If you have any views on the matter, please feel free to add them to the arbitration enforcement discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Washington Post
The WP is a reliable source of information? Bah hah hah hah!!! Please do not drink the kool-aid John (if that is your real name).--Tomtom9041 (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Gaza
I think alot of the content on the talk page goes to show there are some accuracy disputes, some of which are slowly being resolved but the fact they have to be raised makes the extra warning for readers justified in my opinion. Theres clearly strong views that the article has neutrality problems and that in part leads to factual accuracy problems. For example the part about "the most serious violation" in november. That was clearly inaccurate as a violation is a violation, i doubt the ceasefire set levels of whats a bad violation and a very bad one were. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

UN Watch Sources
Hi, this source is cited on the UN Watch article as sourcing the claims which I reviewed. Unfortunately, the source makes no mention of any of these details, and they contradict some other sources. That is why I tagged them as failing verification. When you removed the failed-verification tag, did you have an actual source or other type of verification for these facts? If we can't find a real source, we should remove those lines from the article. Nimur (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Molan
Hi. I have replied to your posting on Jim Molan's talk page. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Files missing description details
Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as: are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
 * File:JStreetLogo.png
 * File:JStreetPACLogo.PNG

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Noah Pollak for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Noah Pollak is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Noah Pollak until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (help!) 17:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Disinvestment from Iran for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Disinvestment from Iran is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Disinvestment from Iran until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Center for Middle East Policy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Center for Middle East Policy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Center for Middle East Policy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Longhornsg (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)