| Revision as of 10:35, 24 February 2009 editHarlan wilkerson (talk | contribs)5,190 edits →Six-Day War: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:12, 24 February 2009 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 4 thread(s) (older than 6d) to User talk:Jayjg/Archive 27.Next edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| {{clear}} | {{clear}} | ||
| == ] == | |||
| You might want to weigh in with your opinion. --<font color="navy" size="2">David</font> ''']''' 17:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you == | |||
| Jaygh: I wanted to thank you for this sussint comment on the False Flag talk page: | |||
| This should be fairly straightforward; you should look for things that ] describe as "false flag" operations. You shouldn't be trying to find examples based on your own definition of the term, and how well you think various actions fit it - that's ]. | |||
| It was so susscint and helpful, it has stuck with me ever since. ] (]) 20:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Personal Attacks == | |||
| What do you make of edit summary? Is this acceptable commentary? ] (]) 04:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Hope you don't mind me poking my nose in, but no, that's not acceptable. Not by a long shot. <font color="green">]</font> 04:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| You recently banned the above user for vandalism. This has continued (there are warnings with diffs on the talk page) and we now have ]. Also worth noting this statement "No, I think I'll just break the rules till they ban me forever" on his talk page on the 17th after the ban. Any chance you could have a look? Thanks --] (]) 07:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
| I see you have edited this page before, and had dealings with the editor who is now launching a mini-edit war. If you have time, take a look.--] (]) 09:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC) | I see you have edited this page before, and had dealings with the editor who is now launching a mini-edit war. If you have time, take a look.--] (]) 09:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ==]== | == ] == | ||
| Hello. I have a question. ] has been removing all references to ] and ] from the geographical location of this settlement and all others, saying that this is according to ]. I have looked there and it seems that there was a long argument, but I could not see any conclusions (but maybe I did not look well enough). Since you were involved in that argument, can you please tell me if there was some policy emerging from that discussion regarding the omission of these names? Thank you. ] (]) 17:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | Hello. I have a question. ] has been removing all references to ] and ] from the geographical location of this settlement and all others, saying that this is according to ]. I have looked there and it seems that there was a long argument, but I could not see any conclusions (but maybe I did not look well enough). Since you were involved in that argument, can you please tell me if there was some policy emerging from that discussion regarding the omission of these names? Thank you. ] (]) 17:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :It's probably one of the most well-sourced facts in WP history. ] (]) 18:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | :It's probably one of the most well-sourced facts in WP history. ] (]) 18:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Line 64: | Line 45: | ||
| == AE == | == AE == | ||
| Regarding , you may wish to comment at the related complaint I have made . ] (]) 01:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC) | Regarding , you may wish to comment at the related complaint I have made . ] (]) 01:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 14:12, 24 February 2009
| This is a subpage of Jayjg's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
| 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. |
 Archives |
|
no archives yet (create) |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Park Hotel seder attack
I see you have edited this page before, and had dealings with the editor who is now launching a mini-edit war. If you have time, take a look.--Gilabrand (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Alon Shvut
Hello. I have a question. Pedrito has been removing all references to Judea and Samarea from the geographical location of this settlement and all others, saying that this is according to Talk:Israeli settlement. I have looked there and it seems that there was a long argument, but I could not see any conclusions (but maybe I did not look well enough). Since you were involved in that argument, can you please tell me if there was some policy emerging from that discussion regarding the omission of these names? Thank you. Tkalisky (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's probably one of the most well-sourced facts in WP history. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info, however I still cannot see the bottom line. Was there any decision to remove all mention of Judea and Samarea from settlement locations? Thanks Tkalisky (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's difficult to comment on that without commenting on individual editors, but FWIW, there are tons of reliable sources for the position that "J+S" are non-compliant with WP:NPOV, WP:NCGN and WP:UNDUE, and none at all for the opposing position. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- That is your opinion (and I respect that), however my question is was there a bottom line to the discussion? Was a policy decided upon? Thanks Tkalisky (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- There was no consensus either way. If there was any consensus it was that editors should not go around switching the terms, something User:Pedrito has decided to ignore. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Consensus and filibustering are kind of polar opposites. Suffice it to say that the facts are entirely on the standard terminology side, as shown in my link above. Using Israel-specific terminology also violates several WP policies, notably WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:NCGN. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- MeteorMaker's theories regarding the use of the term "Samaria" were conclusively disproven, and despite his incessant attempts at proof by assertion, there is no consensus to remove either term from any article. MeteorMaker was, in fact, put on restrictions against doing exactly that, and I suspect Pedrito will be as well if he continues. Jayjg 01:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- That ban was based on what has been confirmed by the admin to be a misunderstanding. She promised to lift it, but forgot to do so before she went on vacation. Re your list: Scroll down a little and see that even your painstakingly scraped-together anecdotal evidence for the position that "Samaria" is a modern toponym doesn't hold up to scrutiny. You have still not presented one source that corroborates your claim without large doses of WP:SYNTH, and you need lots to match the colossal amount of sources that expressly say you're wrong. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- There was no consensus either way. If there was any consensus it was that editors should not go around switching the terms, something User:Pedrito has decided to ignore. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- That is your opinion (and I respect that), however my question is was there a bottom line to the discussion? Was a policy decided upon? Thanks Tkalisky (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's difficult to comment on that without commenting on individual editors, but FWIW, there are tons of reliable sources for the position that "J+S" are non-compliant with WP:NPOV, WP:NCGN and WP:UNDUE, and none at all for the opposing position. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info, however I still cannot see the bottom line. Was there any decision to remove all mention of Judea and Samarea from settlement locations? Thanks Tkalisky (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Help?
I don't need krep like this. Having a disruptive editor follow me around and disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me and reverting my edits is not what I signed up for. THF (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
AE
Regarding this, you may wish to comment at the related complaint I have made here. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Six-Day War
There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption..
I have not been deleting any material and have provided a multitude of WP:RS sources that justify the inclusion of the material contained in my edits. harlan (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)