User talk:Sneaky

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Jayjg (talk) 14:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Where should discussion go?
Discussion about article content should generally go on the Talk: page for that article. It usually works best if you propose article changes in Talk: first before making them. Also, the convention is that new discussion goes on the bottom of Talk: pages, not on the top. Finally, critical policies to remember include NPOV, No original research, and Cite your sources; it's extremely helpful if you make every edit with these in mind. Jayjg (talk) 14:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

History of Lebanon
Seems like we're doing concurrent edits, so I'll wait for you to finish - I don't want to run over your stuff. Doug 04:53:00 March 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

Can you look at my comment in Talk:History of Lebanon regarding the dates for the civil war to be used in headings, etc? I haven't seen any source that claims that the civil war ended in October 1976, regardless of the deterence force (Syria) arriving on the scene. Every textbook or news source I have talks about Taif (October 1989) and the following 2 years as the end. The BBC for example refers to 1990 as the end, though I think they're doing it to simplify the 1990-1992 events. I agree that the problem with writing a wiki on this is that three or more events happened during the civil war - Operation Litani (1978), Lebanon War (1982), Multinational Force (1983-1984), War of the Camps (1985-1989) all happen within this context. Doug Mar 4 03:55:50 UTC 2005

Well, if you look at most main news media (BBC, CNN, NYTimes, etc) they'll refer to 15-16 years of civil war 1975-1990/91 in their coverage of Lebanon and Syria. But university textbooks such as The Middle East: A History (Sydney Nettleton Fisher & William Ochsenwald) both refer to the civil war as having raged for that period. I'm have no idea why Smith would claim it was over in 1976 - you state it's a good history text so I'm a bit confused about the motivation. As for OnWar - I assume they don't do their own research and may be using a source such as Smith. Does it have to do with falsifying Syria's role from an active promoter of the instability to a peacekeeping force? Dunno. I don't mean to be snarky, I just find that to be odd, especially considering how fierce the 1985-1989 fighting was. After all it brought a lot of pressure in the Arab world on Syria to actually behave like a peacekeeping force rather than just a backer of one or two militias of its choosing (again, see the Taif Agreement). Doug Mar 4 05:59:34 UTC 2005

Not too happy about the rush to edit either, but we can recover by diff comparing versions. The history will retain all of the changes we've made so we can use that. Doug Mar 4 08:56:12 UTC 2005

Hi, I will again state (to Doug) that no offense was intended. I breezed into this when the Main Page had "in the news" info about the current crisis, and found the History of Lebanon and Lebanese Civil War articles to be (1) very very long, and (2) basically one long paragraph. IMO the sections make the information much more accessible, but that is of course my POV. OTOH, most long articles on the WP do seem to use section breaks, I assume for this reason. WRT whether to designate the time period of the Civil War as 75-76 or 75-90, I'm no expert. To me it seems easy enough to add to the opening para that some people use the term to describe the period demarcated by October 1976, but it is also commonly held to include the subsequent periods entitled by the other sections, and including Litani, Operation PFG, etc. Finally, my edits are 100% well-intended and I haven't been (consciously) editing to change the POV. Some examples of what I changed, specifically two huge paragraphs on the internecine conflict between Arafat and Abu Nidal and the PFLP and all that, as well as two huge paras on the intra-Cabinet wrangling in Israel over the various operations and the implications for Sharon's career, just obviously don't have direct bearing on the details of either the History of Lebanon or the Civil War, and accordingly I moved them away while preserving them in their entirety. Kaisershatner 15:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sneaky, thanks for the followup. I can certainly understand being invested in how a page looks and wary of people messing around with it, and I'm glad you noticed I'm not messing with the content, so no offense taken. See the talk: page over there at Lebanon, I'm going to propose we start a new page about the current crisis, moving too fast to keep up, isn't it? Kaisershatner 13:22, 7 Mar 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)

Request for Support
I've filed a complaint against user Jayjg for abuse of Admin powers and Anti-Arab bias. The link [] will take you there. I see that you too have been subject to Jayjg's treatment, and I would appreciate any additional evidence you can provide.A.Khalil 02:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your apology
Thank you, I appreciate that. I'm sure we'll be able to work together amicably and collegially in the future. Jayjg (talk) 05:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied with the current status of the History of Lebanon article; User:Doug Danner has effectively dealt with the issues your edits created. No further dialogue is required there at the moment, as the purpose of Talk: pages is to resolve current issues with article content.  I will respond on the Norman Finkelstein page to your latest comment there. Jayjg (talk)  06:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are looking for. I disagreed your proposed edits for a number of reasons already outlined.  I have no issues with the current state of the History of Lebanon article, since User:Doug Danner NPOVd your edits.  I have presented my position on the Arbitration page, and an Arbitration page is not the place for long back and forth debates about whose position is correct.  You disagree with my edits, and have essentially stated that I both edit in bad faith, and have lied about my comments.  That is your prerogative.  I also believe that your three questions are, in fact, leading questions that contain inherently false assumptions, of the "have your stopped beating your wife" kind.  If you still have issues with me, as you appear to, the next logical step in dispute resolution a Request for Comment, or if you think our issues need more personal resolution, a Request for Mediation. Jayjg (talk)  15:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I am disappointed, but not surprised, to find that your apology was not made in good faith, but rather in the expectation of some sort of quid pro quo. It is clear to any impartial observer why your questions are leading; your protestations that you cannot see why they are leading suggests a number of possibilities, none of them positive.  That you close your latest comment to me with yet another leading question is the nail in the coffin.  You seem to want to pursue some sort of disagreement with me, over what I am not sure any more, except that you don't seem to like me, and have appointed yourself as some sort of judge or inquisitor over me.  Well, Wikipedia is not a debating forum or a soapbox, nor is it your private courtroom, and I'm not interested in personality disputes; I'd prefer to use the Talk: pages for their intended purpose, that is, discussion of proposed article content, since I see no possible positive outcome from any other kind of dialogue with you. I look forward to collaborating with you on article content at some point in the future; until then, I hope you find your future Wikipedia experiences to be positive and enriching. Jayjg (talk)  16:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I've explained my reasoning quite clearly on a number of occasions, including my explanation of why I reverted your POV edits, my quite clear explanation as to the purpose of Talk: pages, and my belief in the futility of further discussion on this matter. Your crusade to get explanations for things which have already been explained, and to "resolve" article content issues which have already been resolved, is, at this point, verging on harassment.  Please focus your future attentions on improving Wikipedia articles, not on me. Jayjg (talk)  14:56, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A few final comments. 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 my posts on your talk page 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. Again, interested parties should view Jayjg's talk page (heading "Concern about the quality of your edits"). sneaky 03:36, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Arab Israeli conflict
I've just reread your post on my talk page. True to your pesudonym there are quite a few propagandist tricks in there like your claims to not have any particular bias, but then to use little 'subliminal' biased bits like comparing Israel to South Africa vis-a-vis the ANC and the US vis-a-vis American Indians.
 * I'm not trying to be sly with those analogies. I'm talking about recently established states that achieved statehood partially through the use of terror and subsequently found themselves protecting their borders against "terrorists" using bases in neighboring territory.  Can't see how that's biased. sneaky 05:22, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Also to claim that Chomsky is a Zionist (ludicrous claim at best) or the use of leading questions. It's peculiar how the tactics of all adherents of the Chomsky are the same.
 * (1) Back in the day, Chomsky was among "those elements in the Zionist movement that stood outside the ideological consensus but were nonetheless comimtted to some version of Zionism. Generally speaking, what attracted these dissidents to Zionism was its cultural dimension; politically, they favored a bi-nationalist resolution of the Palestine conflict, in which the 'total equality of political rights of the two peoples' would be recognized."  I'm quoting from Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality, pp. 11-12.  (Whatever you may think of Finkelstein's political views, he is an expert on Zionism.)  You can read a representative essay from this perspective in Chomsky's Towards a New Cold War.  So it's not so "ludicrous" - Zionism is quite diverse.  (2) It's peculiar how you insist on conflating standard critical perspectives on Israeli history with Chomsky, and assume that the "adherents of Chomsky" who promulgate these perspectives use the same Chomskyan "tactics" in their anti-Israel crusades. sneaky 05:22, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Another Chomsky thing is to try to overwhelm your opponent with the word mill. As opposed to the previously mentioned tenured professor who does little research any more and devotes his time to leading the anti-American and anti-Israeli offensive in the academic world, I thought you actually had a day job.
 * I do have a day job. I'm there now.  And sorry for my verbosity - I do prefer to err on the side of thoroughness.  Uncle Noam taught me that. sneaky 05:22, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

No kidding, it'll take me quite a while to answer the whole post, as I have no intention of doing it bit by bit. Again, I pledge to respond to the lot.
 * Adversarial comments aside, I genuinely appreciate your pledge. For me, the fun of Wikipedia is largely in exchanges such as these.  Look forward to your responses. sneaky 05:22, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

In the meanwhile I've decreased my wikipedia addiction to just keeping History of Lebanon up to date with current events and some odd tiny edits. Finally, after I respond to your post we need to get back to editing History of Lebanon and the satellite articles. Right now I'm not really looking forward to the amount of work necessary. User:Doug Danner Mar 15 04:47:50 UTC 2005

RE: Jayjg arbitration comments
Actually, I am not that familliar with the innerworking of the dispute resolution and/or content dispute policies (I just know what Arbitration isn't), which is partially why I chose not to respond to your comment at the Arbitration page (I also felt I had written enough for what, technically, was clearly a bogus arbitration case). I, myself, presently have an AMA advocate to aid and advise me on such matters for an ongoing case I'm currently involved in. Hope that helps.

Regards, El_C 21:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)