Bless sins (talk | contribs) |
Ultramarine (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 515: | Line 515: | ||
Yes, but certainly I would be willing to follow this, if you yourself followed this. I would also follow this if you showed any sign of trying to understand my arugments instead of opposing them because you have incorrectly assumed that I "only want to whitewash".[[User:Bless sins|Bless sins]] 11:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC) |
Yes, but certainly I would be willing to follow this, if you yourself followed this. I would also follow this if you showed any sign of trying to understand my arugments instead of opposing them because you have incorrectly assumed that I "only want to whitewash".[[User:Bless sins|Bless sins]] 11:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
== State terrorism == |
|||
Hi. Too much opposition at the moment. Chomsky has lots of supporters. See for example [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by the United States (sixth nomination)]]. The list article has so many strange accusations that hopefully most people will not be fooled. So I am concentrating on other articles for now.[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 15:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:20, 26 June 2007
Thanks for visiting my Talk: page.
If you are considering posting something to me, please: *Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted. Thanks again for visiting. |
Talk archives![]() |
Ritual washing in Judaism
Thanks! Today wasn't my best day. After all that talk, I'll need to put off working on the article, maybe until the weekend. Thanks again. --Shirahadasha 00:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
East Jerusalem synagogues
Hello Jayjg. Since two or three small synagogues in the Jewish quarter were not destroyed, do you mind if I change it back, or will you revert again? nadav (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Are you absolutely sure about this? It is possible, for example, that they were used for other purposes, then restored to synagogues? Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, well I know for a fact that the Ohr haChaim synagogue was still functioning up until the war. It was closed and then reopened in '67. This info is on the Israeli government websites [1] and [2]. The Ari synagogue I think was used only until the riots in '36. I have no info about the third Jewish quarter synagogue on the list. nadav (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Panairjidde Sock
You forgot to block User:Snoimaert Kingjeff 02:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- New sock, User:SmoothExit. In case you haven't been keeping up with his case, we had a formal revocation of his editing priveleges on WP... --Palffy 12:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Do you mind banning the new sock please? Continued editting back and forth on the Guus Hiddink page. --Palffy 23:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
FYI
[3] - too exterme ? Zeq 15:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
On antisemitism [4]. Might be of interest (the "What Are the Origins of Islamic Antisemitism?" section) . --Aminz 02:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
vexatious sockpuppet case
Someone neglected to inform you of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jayjg. I've closed it, but in case you hadn't seen it, I'm letting you know. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
What's your feeling on how we should proceed with the quote from Weizmann? BYT 19:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
...for helping undo Toussaint's mess :)--cj | talk 02:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Uggh. I should well be, but there's just no better distraction than Wikipedia.--cj | talk 02:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Gettysburg Address
I'm curious about this reversion. What was wrong? -- Fyslee/talk 21:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Original research?
Please explain your recent excision of material on David Frum?
I didn't know you were 46th by number of edits, or that you had been an administrator for three years when I left this note. I only have 15,000 edits, have been contributing to the wikipedia for 2 2/3 years, and am not an administrator. But it has been my experience that when a wikipedian goes and reverts something, without really explaining themselves, edit warring often ensues.
Maybe you think there is something "obvious" that I am missing, and you have no obligation to explain? I started a little essay on User:Geo Swan/opinions/Nothing is really "obvious" -- a parable. Feel free to read it. It is not meant to be patronizing, although someone told me it felt that way. It is really a plea for my correspondents to explain themselves more fully, because what is "obvious" is really highly POV, and vulnerable to systemic bias.
Cheers! Geo Swan 23:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
2006 Lebanon War mediation
Hi, I have opened a medation request for renaming the 2006 Lebanon War article to 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War. While it was originally planned to only included the two significant parties, other participants may join. Cheers. --Shamir1 23:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
So -- can I ask your opinion on the work Slim has done re: the Weizmann quote? BYT 09:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Can we have a dialoge about this? What's your view on how we should proceed? BYT 15:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Jay, I know you for an expert on the Holocaust issues. Although reliable sources are scarce, a wikipedian demands each sentence in the above article to be sourced.[5] [6] Could you refer me to some English-language literature on the subject of those trials? Thanks in advance, Ghirla-трёп- 13:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. I was able to find some sources, although they may not be the best. --Ghirla-трёп- 15:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
My RfA :)
![]() Again, thank you, and happy editing! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC) |
Bless sins and 3RR
User:Bless sins has completed his 4th revert. Shall you fill out the paperwork or should I. (I have no experience in 3RR reporting). Prester John 21:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- No need. I self-reverted to you.[7]Bless sins 21:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Arabs and antisemitism
Hello Jayjg,
It's nice to see that we've avoided conflict on Arabs and antisemitism. Perhaps we should come to a compromise on Islam and antisemitism as well?Bless sins 21:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The article is all wrong. Please see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,221415,00.html
Barak who coined the word sepration used it in the context of "We are at one of the most important junctions for the future of the country, and its citizens," he told MPs. "The big picture is clear. They are there, and we are here. There must be a division between us. But we have maintained the unity of Israel, and Jerusalem is our capital. "
Read the article and the clashes that erupted after barak transfered more territory to the hands of the PA. No not the settlers were against it but the Palestinians in Jerusalem areas of Abu Dis and Aazriye who prefered to remain part of Israeli jerusalem instead of being part of the PA. .... Zeq 05:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
PS the word הפרדה ןמ in Hebrew (look it up in Even Shushan - the source for Hebrew words) is not at all "sepration" but:
1. הרחקת דבר מדבר אחר 2. פירוק לחומרים מהם מורכב חומר
Or in english: To make two items far apart OR to dismentle matter to it's componenets.
clearly the word is used in Israel in the context of תכנית ההפרדה where ex PM Barak wanted to create the foundation for two independent states seprated by a border. IMHO people like Alper are strong exterm advocate and should be used as source for Hebrew words. Zeq 05:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I have an aversion to revert battles, but I just don't know what else to do about the reinsertion of this Finn, Frazer, and Shahin material that keeps getting added. It looked like there was consensus previously, but now the attempt to portray Palestinians as direct descendants of the Canaanites has renewed with a greater vigor (is that an expression in English?). Almaqdisi is unwilling to accept that these sources cannot be taken as representative of current scholarly opinion. I'll defer to your judgment on how to handle this. nadav (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see why you removed "American Jew" from the categories on the Paul Wolfowitz article. There are many individuals with Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers who are listed as American Jews. In an ethnic sense, he is half Jewish. I mean, the article even states within it that "even though he is Jewish". It seems that the article is contradicting itself. He is Jewish, and I would like you to provide a satisfactory explanation before I contact and bring in major wikipedia editors.
I read the entire talk page and fail to see why "American Jew" is being removed as a category. I agree with you that he has never publicly acknowledged that he is a member of the Jewish faith. However, he is half Jewish, and typically, wikipedians acknowledge this as being an "American Jew". An "American Jew" can be one who practices Judaism or one of Jewish heritage. There is a significant amount of evidence supporting the fact that he is an ethnic Jew. Consequently, it seems odd that one would deny a fact which is repeated throughout the article. --CommonSense101 00:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm new to all this so stay with me here ha...Well, the American Jew category does not only apply to religious Jews. We have clear evidence that he has Jewish heritage even though he does not neccesarily practice the religion. Most would recognize that as being an American Jew - though I do recognize that Jewish law would suggest that it only applies if the mother is Jewish. Nevertheless, there are enough supporting facts to confirm that he is half Jewish. Many high profile celebrities are listed as American Jews despite the fact that they're half Jewish (including one's with a Jewish father). Are all of these individuals falsely categorized? Please let me know --CommonSense101 01:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Unblock request
Hi there; User:128.197.11.30, whom you blocked for two years as an editor working through a Tor proxy mode (unarguably blockable, no conflict there) has announced on WP:UNBLOCK that his situation has changed. I have obviously done no more than to tell him that I would draw your attention to his request, which I have now done. Whether I accept his statement I make no comment on.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 09:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Situation has not changed, that IP address is still listed as a tor exit node. --Yamla 14:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration
Hello. I've requested arbitration on the disagreement over the MEMRI page which includes you as an interested party. Currently at Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration. Thanks, Jgui 15:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Swiftboating
That's exactly what I'm doing. - Crockspot 17:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Understanding how scientific findings are reported
Jaypg, thanks for your willingness to work with me on this. I think your latest rewording represents the best version yet! 201.220.15.66 20:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Alan
Possibly Panaijdde
Can we check User:Opalfrost out? Kingjeff 20:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Ernest Renan is reputed as a great writer
Ernest Renan is reputed as a great writer
"Discredited maverick" is a odious peyorarive term. No any academic or critician from Said uses this phrase. It`s original from wikipedian author from this section and because it is a partialized point of view.
TOR
What's a TOR proxy? An RfA I was reading got me to wondering. I got the general idea but don't know what TOR stands for. Doczilla 07:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- see * m:Editing with Tor --BozMo talk 10:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
George Soros
Do you have an opinion on the section recently added to this article pertaining to charges by Bill O'Reilly? I find it disturbing that we are repeating a denied allegation that has not been verified by a third party reliable source.--Samiharris 14:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again for your good thoughts and editing in George Soros. Quick point of clarification. In the talk page I cited this portion of BLP:
"Biased or malicious content"
"Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons in biographies and elsewhere. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."
An editor responded that the "pushing an agenda" refers to editors, not the sources. I wonder if that is so, and, even if not, whether there is still a requirement for reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability, when biased or malicious content is concerned? Thanks in advance.--Samiharris 15:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you considered not reverting edits that I and other editors have put alot of work into. If you feel that the edit is in conflict with WP:BLP you might consider changing it to coincide with your interpretation of that policy rather than reverting it entirely. A suggestion was made to have change it to state the particular effect that Soros has on right-wingers. You might consider amending my edits to something of that nature, rather than reverting entirely. Also, you might consider posting on the Biographies of Living Person's Noticeboard as well since you have a problem with my edits. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 18:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Civility
Concerning [8]: While I find your response humorous, it is neither productive nor civil, especially considering the Quibbler appears to be a new user. While at this point these warnings usually say 'please review WP:CIVIL', I know that you are already well aware of WP:CIVIL so I'm wondering why you weren't civil. The Behnam 15:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- It was intended as a humorous response; no doubt that's why you found it humorous. It's rather disappointing when (obviously successful) attempts at levity are met with accusations of incivility. Jayjg (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, Jayjg, even I found it funny. Bladestorm 15:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Just be careful; you can't be too sure how the new user will receive it, especially it he doesn't consider his arguments 'quibbles.' But yeah, it was funny. The Behnam 15:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Adding one of these: would remove all doubt.
. -- Avi 16:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
persecution in muslim lands
you said:If the allegations about 'muslim persecution' were correct these prominent Christian Palestinians would have made public statements to this effect. I have also posted a link above that expresses the majority view from a Palestinian perspective. So I would like to have this article changed ASAP. The fa"
the persecution is for real, palestinians who are christians only in a nominal fashion never denounces nothing made by muslims, because them are leaders from their political groups.
Please edit only articles where you are an expert on the issue discussed there.
List of editors using Tor
As you are aware of and have revealed the name of at least one editor using Tor and as editing using proxies is against policy, where can one see the complete list of all editors who are using Tor proxies? Uncle uncle uncle 23:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Jay, seeing your comment here, can I ask whether your policy is to only ask with admin candidates then? It would seem the same reasoning would apply to current admins as well, in which case we should want a policy of testing all admins for open proxies. As I said on the RfA talk page, I don't know if that's a good policy or not, but it would seem the only way of enforcing this consistently. Mackan79 00:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought this was an interesting topic, so I entered a discussion here: [9] Uncle uncle uncle 00:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Jay, your actions show a clear abuse of M:CheckUser policy and M:Privacy policy
Your revealing to the public of a portion of CharlotteWebb's checkuser information is a blatant abuse of power. I'm probably wading into deep shit as a small editor taking on a member of Wikipedia's "upper class", but you seem to hold policy as gospel and abuse the intent of Checkuser and our Tor policy. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 02:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- I support your comment.
CheckUser is not for fishing --Random832 03:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Do you guys know exactly was behind this? Kingjeff 03:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and we know that it's inappropriate and against one of our strictest policies to release the results of a Checkuser to the public. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 14:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- But in some cases, like the case I mentioned to you, it's a reasonable violation to release this information. Kingjeff 15:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- What was served here? You violated a policy to blindly comply with an essay. Checkuser is not to be used for political purposes, as Jay did by bringing this up on an RfA. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 15:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Policy states: "It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, may be released by the system administrators or users with CheckUser access, in the following situations ... policy does not permit public distribution of such information under any circumstances, except as described above." Just how exactly was this policy violated, I saw no personally identifiable data given out. Dureo 03:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- What was served here? You violated a policy to blindly comply with an essay. Checkuser is not to be used for political purposes, as Jay did by bringing this up on an RfA. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 15:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- But in some cases, like the case I mentioned to you, it's a reasonable violation to release this information. Kingjeff 15:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and we know that it's inappropriate and against one of our strictest policies to release the results of a Checkuser to the public. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 14:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Do you guys know exactly was behind this? Kingjeff 03:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Vrba book
Do you happen to remember the name of the Vrba biography I wanted to use for his article? I've tried to find it on Amazon but I can't seem to track it down. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking of going through that to tighten the writing, by the way; feel free to revert if you don't like it. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
It's okay. Found it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Is this a violation of WP:point ?
[10] Zeq 12:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
FYI
[11],[12] Zeq 12:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Soros
That is not a blp violation. Take it up on the blp noticeboard if you disagree. As a regular patroller and commenter there, I will make my case briefly, then recuse myself from the further noticeboard discussion. - Crockspot 15:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that after I reflected on why you may have come to the conclusion that "stern actions" should be taken on the Soros page. I know that you are trying your best to protect Wikipedia and that's the only reason that you threatened the actions you did. Nobody wants a BLP violation for Wikipedia, of course.
And I would also state to you that one editor who was very opposed to the inclusion of the material is now "on the fence".
However, there are three remaining editors who are opposed to any inclusion of any material by O'Reilly. I can produce strong evidence that these editors have either a political bias and/or a personal hatred of O'Reilly that is causing a whitewash of the inclusion. Based on certain comments, I do not believe that THEY even think it is a BLP violation.
Anyways, I just wanted to let you know this because I was reflecting on your motives for threatening stern actions, and I thought it might give you a different perspective of the whole situation. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
re:persecution in muslim world
As a human rights activist, I tell you it`s no my intention to be hostile or agressive toward you, I`m sorry if you get offended by my comments on this sensitive issue. I was talking on your edits deleting sections on muslim persecution against christians in palestine`s articles. Remember many muslims denounces it as people in: www.rb.org.il www.arabsforisrael.com and 200 muslim palestinians just recently denouncing terrorist attack by Hamas against Bible Society.
- Regarding the above user (Tioeliecer (talk · contribs)), you may want to see Guillen (talk · contribs) and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Guillen for more information. The short version of it is that he came here around a year ago, doesn't speak English very well at all (I always suspected he was contributing through Google translation), and, due to language issues, incorrectly perceived everything he read as being a pro-Catholic/anti-Protestatnt bias. (I am a very conservative Southern Baptist, but somehow, I was a part of this conspiracy.) AmiDaniel and I tried to work with him, but eventually, it got to be too much. Since then, a sporadic sock has appeared. I don't really care one way or the other if he is blocked or not, but if he isn't, his edits need to be closely examined because a lot of them in the past have just been incoherent. --BigDT 13:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Odd rumours
Hi Jayjg, could you just confirm for me that this is the first time we have ever spoken or indeed comminicated in any way at all. In fact this is the first time our paths have ever crossed. If we have met before I cetainly don't remember it - do you? There is an odd rumour doing the rounds that I am involving you in my nefarious plotting or vice versa. Funny place Wikipedia isn't it? Giano 22:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Giano, I do believe that Jayjg was one of the arbitrators in your case last year. Newyorkbrad 00:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- So why is it being claimed on IRC that I re-wrote the IRC page yesterday to draw attention away from whatever it is he is supposed to be doing? Giano 08:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know what is being claimed on IRC, but I have seen this theory on an external blog, and I find it remarkably unlikely and unsupported. Newyorkbrad 11:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- who cares Brad, if it is said on IRCadmins it must be good and wise and 100% true. None of us would certainly be allowed to deny it. Why don't you go and uprotect the page for 10 seconds and go and add Ms Martin's latest pearls of wisdom, then protect it again quickly After all these are the heroes of the encyclopedia who boast of sharing a beer with Jimbo - wow! Licky Jimbp! If you think it is not true (heaven forbid) then go and do something about it. Giano 12:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know what is being claimed on IRC, but I have seen this theory on an external blog, and I find it remarkably unlikely and unsupported. Newyorkbrad 11:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- So why is it being claimed on IRC that I re-wrote the IRC page yesterday to draw attention away from whatever it is he is supposed to be doing? Giano 08:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Just in case anyone is wondering what the latest venom being cooked up on IRC is - here it is [13] straight from the lips of Ms Martin herself. As always completely groundless lies and proving as ever I am completely correct in my suspicion of what goes on there. Poor old Jayjg looks like the reptile pit is about to turn on him next. No doubt even as I post this "He who must be obeyed" is sounding the trumpet calling the drones away from their chatter to comment and pronounce further rubbish against me. When are people going to see what is going on there and do something about it? Giano 12:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- There is nothing new here. In case you don't know, there is a huge thread in the mailing list entitled "Jayjg: Abusing CheckUser for political ends?" It's too boring to read but, if you really care, I may forward it to you. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Ghirla I would love that. Giano 13:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- There is nothing new here. In case you don't know, there is a huge thread in the mailing list entitled "Jayjg: Abusing CheckUser for political ends?" It's too boring to read but, if you really care, I may forward it to you. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
There are a half dozen conspiracy theories swirling about this incident, each one more bizarre than the last. Karl Marx said that history occurs twice, "the first time as tragedy, the second as farce." I think we're into the farce stage on this one. Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Proposal re Nazarene sect
Since you have taken on the thankless job of keeping the riff-raff off the Nazarene page in the past, I wanted to ask your opinion. How would you feel about restricting the article to the historical Nazarene sect and pushing it to GAC? Would you support adding it to WikiProject Judaism and getting some people to help in the effort? Ovadyah 03:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure you have plenty of other things to do, so I'm going to post this proposal on the article talk page for comments. Add your comments there if you have an opinion one way or the other. Ovadyah 01:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- See my reply on my talk page. Thanks! Ovadyah 03:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
CheckUser information
Jay? I count you as a friend on Wikipedia, but mate: what on earth are you doing?!? Why are you revealing an editor is using TOR? Surely this is private information you should be sharing with the Bureaucrats only so they can take it into account? You're in a position of trust here: please don't do this! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK, so I've made a bit of an idiot out of myself here, and potentially offended a long-standing friend on Wikipedia. It's been pointed out to me by a few people that it didn't reveal much info about the editor, and that it was a reasonable question. I always get very wary about privacy (if you remember, back when I first started I was targetted by Neo-Nazis), so I apologise if I've given you any grief over this one. Sorry Jay :-( - Ta bu shi da yu 08:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me butting in - but is this the terrible crime for which Kelly Martin and the IRClics are claiming I have created a smoke-screan for, by set WP ANI on fire. Because if it is it is very dissapointing I was hoping for something rather more exiting and interesting than a non-event. Giano 07:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Your note
Thanks for the heads up. Crum375 07:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
any advice?
Jayjg, since you are a veteran in Israel related articles, I decided to come here asking for a piece of advice. If you know a better place to ask, please point me there.
Years ago, an Israeli psychiatrist named Zvi Rex made the cunning observation that "The Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz," roughly meaning that "if only there was no Auschwitz then Germans could vent their anti-Semitism much more freely" or that "Germans (and all of Europe that let it happen) do not want to live under the burden of the Holocaust forever". There is a de.wikiquote entry, as well as an abundance of both English ([14], [15], [16], [17]) and German language ([18], [19]) sources for the impact the quote has had on German popular discourse.
My question then is, where would I include this? I'm hesitating to start a new article, as it hardly seems to be a sufficient sole subject. —AldeBaer 15:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I thought perhaps New antisemitism or Holocaust denial. Some of the sources are putting the quote into that context, as it is a comment on related tendencies in the public domain. —AldeBaer 15:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've created a page on wikiquote. Googling some more, I found the quote first appeared in a book by German journalist Henryk Broder with the comparably clever title "Der Ewige Antisemit" [20]. It is being loosely associated with so-called "secondary antisemitism" [21], [22], a concept attributed to Theodor W. Adorno and others, often explained as antisemitism not despite of but because of Auschwitz. Maybe that would be worth incorporating. Going to look for some sources and post it at Talk:New_antisemitism. —AldeBaer 21:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. The above still applies though, I'm just going to post it to Antisemitism talk instead and see what people think of it before making any changes. Thanks for the guidance. —AldeBaer 02:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've created a page on wikiquote. Googling some more, I found the quote first appeared in a book by German journalist Henryk Broder with the comparably clever title "Der Ewige Antisemit" [20]. It is being loosely associated with so-called "secondary antisemitism" [21], [22], a concept attributed to Theodor W. Adorno and others, often explained as antisemitism not despite of but because of Auschwitz. Maybe that would be worth incorporating. Going to look for some sources and post it at Talk:New_antisemitism. —AldeBaer 21:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Protecting Operation Entebbe
How do you decide which version of the article will be locked? The proponents of the version you have locked it to have not engaged in discussion for quite a while. This is because they are satisfied with the version it is locked to. --Agha Nader 18:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
[23] Notification of request for arbitration
I have initiated a request for arbitration here. Your input is appreciated. Kamryn Matika 19:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
muslim persecution
I was saying this discussion on talk page: You appear to misunderstand me. I support you, but you need to includes the weblinks I mentioned you.
Palestine - bias
the article about Palestine gives historic from 10,000 BC while the article about israel starts at around 1948.
this is biased and non NPOV.
there should be a combine article for history from 10,000 BCE until....maybe 20th century.
after all at 10,000 BC the place was not called "palestine" more than it was called "israel" Zeq 13:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Soros
Well, Goethean appears to be taking advantage of my hesitance to edit the article (because of your warning to me, and is inserting what I see as a personal attack into his edit summary. I believe he may be trying to bait me into getting myself blocked, or at least is violating WP:POINT after feigning consensus. I feel that you've tied my hands here. - Crockspot 18:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
delete user's page
Hi Jayjg,
Can admin delete user's page ?
Would it be possible I request one of mine to be deleted ?
Thank you ! Alithien 18:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for revert on Anti-Zionism
Hi Jayjg, Thanks for doing the revert to Sefringle's edit. When we disagreed we talked on the article discussion page and reached a compromise that we both can live with. He (?) has refused to discuss his issues on the page. And I just felt that his slapping of the edit war warning on my page was gloating considering he has done as many reverts as me.--Peter cohen 11:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Your input would be helpful
As you have contributed to the page for Category:Antisemitism, would you please look at Talk:Jerry Klein’s 2006 Radio Experiment. I have been debating another editor on whether its mention of the Holocaust renders it worthy of inclusion in the Category:Antisemitism. Your comments would be appreciated, either it does not qualify as I suggest or I have misunderstand the category. Either way your opinion would be helpful.--Wowaconia 18:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
"God" article
My edits were the result of the discussion on the talk page, which established that the article needed to be written from a more NPOV and that an agnostic tone needed to be adopted. Your edits remove the NPOV and present only the theist view. Please don't edit-war over this. Please raise your concerns on the talk page first, especially for such a major edit on such a major and controversial article. Roccondil 23:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
There are more sources in my edit, it is supported on the talk page (I think it's section 17 if you're looking for it), and I would argue mine's better written, so let's leave aside which is better written. DO NOT EDIT WAR. Roccondil 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to get into a petty "you started it", but you'll see if you actually decide to read it that my relatively minor revision was backed by the discussion. Your near-complete rewrite was not. I'm going to leave it for a while, but you've been reverted I notice by two separate editors. You probably will be again, and if you re-revert back to your own personal, biased, poorly-sourced version (don't argue about your sources being better than mine, you didn't introduce any additional sources, you only removed some of mine) again I'll report you.
There was opposition to the original Template:In-universe suggestion, not to the compromise. And I'd report you to your fellow admins for violating WP:NPOV and WP:3RR. Just cos you're an admin yourself doesn't make you immune to such things, so please get that smug grin off your face. Or would you rather just go ahead and redirect the page we're arguing about to your own userpage?
PCRF Militant Islam Monitor References
Please stop perpetuating yoru external links section inclusion of the two militant Islam monitor weblog links. WP:EL policy clearly dictates that blog links are to be avoided; the MLM blogs with very strong biases and prejudices clearly fall under this category. Please do not revert to include these links. Thanks.
- It's not a blog. Jayjg (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Check the header to your links, they say weblog--> blog. Thanks.
- One of the articles is a blog entry, as such does not deserve inclusion as per WP:EL guidelines, its not a link to a blog as you claim. Thanks.
- http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/221; this is in the subgroup of blogs. Thanks.
- THe other MIM article you have linked to is of extremely poor quality, numerous facts are stated without references:
- http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/221; this is in the subgroup of blogs. Thanks.
- One of the articles is a blog entry, as such does not deserve inclusion as per WP:EL guidelines, its not a link to a blog as you claim. Thanks.
- Check the header to your links, they say weblog--> blog. Thanks.
The PCRF is also funded by the UAE based Zayed Foundation For Coordination and Followup, (which also funds "Medicins sans Frontieres".) In 2003 the Zayed Foundation website was demanded closed down by the US governement because it promoted Holocaust denial, blood libel, and that 9/11 was a hoax.
In 2002 PCRF director Steve Sosebee spoke at the Zayed Foundation and blamed "Zionist manipulation " for Arab problems.
In addition the PCRF receives funding from the Saudis and Prince Bandar. He has made no secret of his virulent hatred for Jews and Israel, and says he sees his work as a "means of aiding the struggle".
The PCRF is a wing of the Zayed Foundation and uses the guise of medical assistance to encourage combatants in the intifada . There are many other unsourced statements throughout the article, which severely diminish its quality. Further, it is poorly organized, and its thoughts disoriented, which makes it very hard to follow and read. Therefore not only in its poor quality but also under WP:EL guidelines dictating not to link to sites with unverifiable research, which this article clearly contains. Thanks.
I am sorry, I was unaware that I was in violation of the 3RR rule. I did not mean to violate the rules. However, I would also caution that you seem to also be in violation of the 3RR, and the only reason I went directly to the page is given the unilateral actions I saw being taken on the page in the first place, with little or no response to criticism raised in the talk section. Thanks.
which edit are you talking about?
Harassing sockpuppet disrupting Soros page
Hi, Jayig. I saw you had issued a warning on the Soros page, so I thought you'd be the best one to contact about this.
It seems either Crockspot or Bellowed has created a sockpuppet account[24] to attempt to get around 3RR on the Soros page. "Willie Peter" has been created today solely to revert edits on that page, in the same combative tone and manner that Crockspot and Bellowed have done ad nauseam. There's also some pretty entertaining "Hey, welcome to Wikipedia, and don't let anyone accuse you of being my sockpuppet, wink wink" stuff on "Willie Peter's" freshly created Talk page. It's self-discrediting.
Crockspot and Bellowed are also attempting to "engineer consensus" on the Bill Moyers page.[25] It seems both these users wish to insert POV directly from the Bill O'Reilly show into at least two Wikipedia articles.
Additionally, the new sockpuppet seems intent in removing the sockpuppet warnings from his Talk[26] and User [27] pages, while screaming "harassment." Kind of curious from a user whose account is less than 24 hours old.
Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Eleemosynary 01:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please tell this editor Eleemosynary to behave, assume good faith and stop harassing me.Willie Peter 01:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thanks
- By all means, check his edit history. Eleemosynary 01:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for locking the Soros page. Do you have any advice on how to stop "Willie Peter" [28] from removing the sockpuppet evidence from his User and Talk pages? Eleemosynary 01:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- You know what? I don't object to a checkuser being run on me, and when it is, I expect an apology from you. Your behavior is uncalled for. - Crockspot 02:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please stop this guy's out of control behavior Eleemosynary . Run the checkuser on me and I fully expect a full; good faith apology from this editor, for his harassment and bad behavior.Willie Peter 02:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, so it's a meatpuppet. Thanks for clarifying, guys. Eleemosynary 03:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I expect an apology here as well Eleemosynary. You are jumping to many conclusions well before there is any evidence. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 16:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, so it's a meatpuppet. Thanks for clarifying, guys. Eleemosynary 03:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for locking the Soros page. Do you have any advice on how to stop "Willie Peter" [28] from removing the sockpuppet evidence from his User and Talk pages? Eleemosynary 01:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- It should be pointed out that Eleemosynary was blocked last night for a continuing and disruptive violation of 3RR. - Crockspot 18:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Willie Peter. There's also a pending checkuser.--Chaser - T 20:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
God intro
Please discuss changes to the intro on the Talk page before applying them in the article. Thanks. --Serge 04:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Presumably, the source in question defines what he means by "supreme reality" where he uses it. Taking that term out of context, however, and defining the topic of an article in terms of it, makes no sense. It's meaningless. "Supreme" implies a hierarchy of (at least two) realities, hardly an NPOV concept. Besides, just because someone wrote something somewhere doesn't alone make it a basis for an intro sentence to an article. That's just one POV. --Serge 15:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Your accusations of POV
Jayjg, I resent your repeated violations of WP:AGF aimed in my direction. Specifically here, here, here, and here. (I realize that I have unfortunately reflected one of your comments here). "When you disagree with people, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project." I have been working towards neutrality (among other improvements) on several pages, most recently on the Hamas page. It is unpleasant and even intimidating to have an administrator tell me that I am doing things for POV reasons when I am in fact doing the exact opposite. It is also ironic, considering that your edits, which dwarf mine in number, appear to me to be almost uniformly in one particular political direction. I'm sure you believe that you are helping the project, but if so, then please do not publicly, and incorrectly, guess as to my motives for making an edit. Because administrators need to "gain the trust of the community" and can "protect and delete pages, block other editors, and undo these actions as well," I think it's particularly important that you can accept the actions of editors with different perspectives than your own. If not, I suggest that you step down as an administrator and work solely as an editor. Thank you. Organ123 18:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Jayjg replied: "Organ123, you managed to write a history of Hamas that didn't even mention suicide bombing. I think that pretty much says it all." Jayjg, I am disappointed in your reply, which continues to disregard AGF and even WP:Civility. Please note that the Hamas page already had an entire section called "Suicide attacks" and already mentioned suicide bombings roughly 20 times. No reader could possibly read the article without being made fully aware that Hamas uses suicide bombings. I am not fundamentally opposed to mentioning suicide bombings in the "History" section -- I was just trying to make the article more concise in a good-faith manner. Administrators especially should please adhere to WP behavioral policies and guidelines. Organ123 19:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Jayjg, I am not siding with this editor, since I am not familiar with this dispute. But while I would never go so far as to suggest that you should give up admin status, I would urge you to consider some of this user's points about bias in an objective way. By the nature of the fact that we are all human beings, we all bring certain biases and points of view to the table. As an editor who has always been open about my political leanings, I have come under constant attack by editors who assume that anyone who would be open about being a conservative must be pushing an agenda. I try very hard to always put the interests of the project ahead of my own views. Where my views and the interests of the project happen to intersect, then that's a bonus, and you might find me pushing a little harder for a change than I would for something that I don't really care much about. There's nothing wrong with that. Other editors, even admins, who lean opposite of me do it as well, and I don't assume a lack of good faith on their part (at least not until they start questioning my good faith). I just chalk it up to people having different views, and I try to convince them to see what I view as an error in their logic or judgment. I know that you and I share common concerns about certain editing practices (related to a certain ARBCOM which I will not name), but I also have a strong sense that you look upon me as someone to be kept watch on. But I would challenge you to find any nefarious patterns in my edit history. I started out a little rough over a year ago, but I quickly learned the ways of Wiki, and I would submit that since about last October, and certainly since the last MONGO RfC, one would be hard-pressed to find much to complain about in my edit history. In the beginning, I used to butt heads with BenBurch all the time. Now we are pretty good friends, and he is just as liberal, and I conservative, as we ever were. We both have learned the value of being reasonable, fair, and working within a guideline structure over just "winning". Now this may sound a little paranoid, but ever since there was some recent open discussion on my talk page about me making a request for admin status, I have been the object of what one could argue is a organized attempt to drag me into the gutter and ruin my reputation in advance of any RfA I might file. (Have you ever seen Jeremiah Johnson, the way the Crow warriors come at him unexpectedly one at a time?). It started with IP users, and "new" accounts, and now seems to be stepping up into established users. But whenever I find myself in a dispute these days, whether I am on the periphery, or more involved, I seem to be singled out of everyone else as the ringleader and evil master who controls the behavior of others. So far, most of these attackers have ended up getting hoisted on their own petard, and suffered a block for their trouble. My block history remains unsullied. That should tell you something about me. I may be a little paranoid, but that doesn't mean that they're not after me. But I remain unafraid, and will keep improving sources, fighting vandals, , rc patrolling, and will soon reinstate myself as a BLP patroller. - Crockspot 20:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg replied to me: "I'm willing to engage in dialog with you, but any further posts of your that assert violations of AGF or Civility, or refer in any way to my role as an administrator, will trigger immediate removal of all our correspondence from my Talk: page." Jayjg, where should I mention these topics if not on your talk page? I'm not saying that rhetorically; I'd really like to know the answer. Your talk page seemed like the most polite place to approach it. Organ123 21:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg replied to me: you wrote "Hamas rejects 'so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences' as incapable of realizing justice or restoring rights to the oppressed, but that is not what they say at all.". Actually, that quote predates my first edit to the page. When I created the condensed history section and created the History of Hamas page, I recall almost entirely deleting sentences, not writing new ones. I intentionally did not write new sentences to avoid POV accusations like the ones I am receiving. I do not appreciate being told that I have "filtered Hamas's views through the lens of liberal-left activism"; I do not self-identify as a "liberal left activist" and do not like to be pigeonholed by others. On my talk page and on other pages, you continue to falsely assume that I am violating WP:NPOV -- I do not appreciate it and I think you are out of bounds. Also, you are now trying to censor my genuine concerns from your talk page. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do here. Organ123 21:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll add that I appreciate your new statement that you are sure I mean well. Organ123 21:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Jayjg replied to me: Organ123, there is no need for our dialog to contain these kinds of bad faith accusations etc. There is not point in these kinds of topics, therefore it is best to focus on others. Regarding the sentence in question, you are right, it predates you, and I apologize for attributing it to you." Thank you for the apology about the sentence. I am willing to stop this dialog, for now, as well. It stresses me out.... Organ123 03:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
AFD listings
I don't think that afd would meet with success at this time. I can only think of a few reasons to have it deleted, and most are not even that convincing to myself. The primary reason why I don't think it's a good candidate for AFD just yet is because it's a subdivision of a much bigger list. Maybe in the future, if all Jewish-American lists were nominated for being gross OR or something like that, then maybe it would meet with success. But right now it's going to end in keep, I'm pretty sure. Out of curiousity, why did you want me to nominate it and not nominate it yourself? Bulldog123 20:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Good Lord. Shouldn't the image contained in the {{jew list}} template be gold? Even the template name makes me cringe. I would support deletion of this list if it were to come up. But it might be better to wait for the NYScholar arb to complete. There may be some slight changes to policy as a result that will give more justification to the deletion of something like this. - Crockspot 21:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Diyako checkuser logs
- Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zanyar (Possible sockpuppets)
- Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyako (Diyako is stale)
- Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/71.222.81.30 (Diyako is still stale so no check was made to compare him)
You are receiving this because your username either appears on the checkuser list or you were one of the arbitrators that participated in the relevant Arbcom case (User:Dmcdevit, User:Jdforrester, User:The Epopt, User:Charles Matthews, User:Sam Korn, User:Fred Bauder, User:Jayjg, User:Morven, User:Neutrality).
Currently User:Diyako/User:Xebat is at a stale state for not editing over a month. User hasn't edited for slightly over a year due to an arbcom sanctioned ban. I have a reason to believe ([29], [30], [31]) there may be a connection as the edit pattern seems similar in many ways. Diyako's wikipedia ban has recently expired but if he is continuing a similar behavior as User:D.Kurdistani, there needs to be a further consideration either by ARBCOM or Community Sanction board (latter seems more appropriate IMHO). A successful checkuser would be very helpful in the decision making process on this issue.
This inquiry is to request if you have "personal logs" of Diyako/Xebat's IP's to compare with User:D.Kurdistani and possible other socks. This is NOT a request for the logs themselves but on weather or not you have them. Please reply on my talk page to confirm if you have the logs or not. User:Mackensen appears to be the only person to have preformed a successful checkuser but others may also have this info.
-- Cat chi? 10:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Re:Jewwatch
I was comparing that article with Jews_for_Jesus (another antisemitic organization imo). Wouldn't it conform with NPOV if we could have all the organizations calling it antisemitic being listed in the first paragraph? To be honest I didn't know there was an edit dispute re: calling it antisemitic, so I'm sorry if I seemed like barging in.--Flamgirlant 16:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
HE
With Tom harrison gone would you take the lead on HE socks? The latest is User:Error1010 and has been harassing Matt57 and myself. This follows edit-warring with proxies that is summarized here. What should we do about this? Arrow740 00:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would say rather you two have been harassing me. I don't think it's me that's been following your edits on every article that you go to. Error1010 00:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Rogue Admin
Please see my User talk:68.110.8.21 and User_talk:Akhilleus#WP:POINT.2C_WP:HOAX.2C_WP:PN.2C_WP:BIAS. Wikipedia seriously needs your help Jay. Thanks. 68.110.8.21 03:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I sought out admins I thought would be helpful, which ended up a larger ensemble than expected. Well, I have at least gotten your attention. Please give me your full attention, rather than make threats. If you don't want to help, just say so. 68.110.8.21 03:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe he is socking again, this time masquerading as an Hkelkar sock. Gr8India (talk · contribs) was blocked by DaGizza (talk · contribs) as an Hkelkar sock. However the checkuser has not proved anything and DaGizza is obviously acting out of spite in relation to the arbcom we are involved in. Please see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of BhaiSaab for more of BhaiSaab's accounts.Bakaman 17:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
User Page questions: How do you get table of contents and picture?
Hey man. I like your user page. I have two questions:
- How do you get that Table of Contents Box to appear?
- How do I upload a picture, so that I can use it on my user page as you do?
Reverted links Re: "best known for suicide bombings"
Before you reverted the links i deleted you should have checked them as i made clear in my comment that they were not relevant. To save you some time here is a breakdown on why for each:
- "Hamas makes inroads; peace route gets rockier" . Article does not mention suicide bombings at all.
- "Best known for the violence it launched against Israel through suicide bombings and rocket attacks... “ Dead link
- "To the outside world, Hamas is best-known — infamous — for its reliance on suicide bombers.” This one is OK and I left it.
- "Defined as a terrorist organization by Israel, the U.S. and the European Union because of its suicide attacks on Israeli civilians..." This sentence does not equate to “best known for”. The article goes on to say “The organization is best known for the exploits of its military wing, the Izzedine Al Qassam brigades.”
- "Hamas is best known abroad for the scores of suicide bombings it has carried out and its commitment to the destruction of Israel." Dead link
- "...the militant organization, best known abroad for its attacks against Israeli civilians" Article does not mention suicide bombings at all.
- "Although Hamas is best known for its suicide attacks..." Article is not a news item but opinion and does not say best known by whom.
- "...it was best known in Israel and abroad for the suicide attacks it used..." If we add the first part of the sentence that was edited out: “Until it participated in this election” the meaning becomes Hamas is no longer “best known” for this.
The page already has a whole section on suicide bombings with masses of links and the claim in the lead still has a good link for reference so to have so many other inappropriate ones is not necessary. In fact the TIME magazine articles description of the suicide bombings is much more appropriate in a lead than what is there now. Wayne 02:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why on earth would a dead link make a difference? It's still properly cited material from the source. Jayjg (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding the first link, I didn't insert it, and didn't check it, so I've left it out now too. Regarding "attacks", the wording has been changed to accommodate that. Jayjg (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- How can now dead links be acceptable as a reference just because they "once" existed? The whole idea of references is for readers of the WP articles to read original sources for themselves. Leaving dead links in leaves an opening for abuse.
Another concern i have is that many of the references have sentences where the name of the article usually is for other pages. It makes the page look very messy and unprofessional. Does the layout of refs in WP have rules or not? Is it just a mistake no one has noticed yet? Wayne 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- How can now dead links be acceptable as a reference just because they "once" existed? The whole idea of references is for readers of the WP articles to read original sources for themselves. Leaving dead links in leaves an opening for abuse.
For example:
- "To the outside world, Hamas is best-known — infamous — for its reliance on suicide bombers." (Palestinian territories:Inside Hamas,PBS FRONTLINE:World, May 9, 2006)
It has a sentence from the body of the text in front of the article title.
There are a large number of links on the page like that making it look like someone is writting an essay instead of just adding links. It really needs tidying up. Wayne 18:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
the sources don't say that, and this distinction is a false one
A link you put there yourself says exactly that. Also, why is the distinction false? The Izzedine Al Qassam brigades is the military wing which is why my country recognises Hamas as the democratically elected government while only the Brigades are listed as a terrorist organisation. As my edit comment said... it was more appropriate for the article lead and more accurate. As it is now it gives the false impression that everyone in Hamas is a terrorist. Wayne 18:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
3RR
I have reported your breach of 3RR on Norman Finkelstein. I have responded to your spurious argument and threat on my own talk page. RolandR 01:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Re:You have to think of a different way of editing
Thanks for your comment on my talk page. However, I find many incorrect assumptions you make about my editing.
- I come back a couple of days later, because I'm currently busy in my personal life.
- a)Once again, I don't think there is any rule on wikipedia prohibiting large changes. Especially if articles are in terrible shape (i.e. they have few or no references). If there is, please inform me of it.
- b)With all due respect, I haven't seen you do much of this either. Infact, when was the last time you actually said something positive or even neutral about Islam?
- c)The fact that I correspond on talk far more than other editors is enough evidence that I'm trying to dicuss my changes and reach compromises. On our recent dispute on Islam and antisemitism, i've already reached compromise with you once, but so far you've yet to concede on any issue.
- d)Again, you never got concensus on talk before you added the S & P material. I haven't really seen you get concensus first. Why should I do the same?
- e)In many cases there is quite a bit of support for my edit. But the only reason users oppose some of edits, frankly, is because of their animosity towards Arabs/Muslims. Sefringle has already declared that on his/her user page. Your position on this I'm not sure of.
Yes, but certainly I would be willing to follow this, if you yourself followed this. I would also follow this if you showed any sign of trying to understand my arugments instead of opposing them because you have incorrectly assumed that I "only want to whitewash".Bless sins 11:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
State terrorism
Hi. Too much opposition at the moment. Chomsky has lots of supporters. See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by the United States (sixth nomination). The list article has so many strange accusations that hopefully most people will not be fooled. So I am concentrating on other articles for now.Ultramarine 15:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)