Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:58, 23 June 2006

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.
*Use headlines when starting new talk topics.
*Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.
*Do not make personal attacks.

Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted.

Thanks again for visiting.

Old talk archived at Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11, Archive 12, Archive 13, Archive 14, Archive 15, Archive 16

Block

It appears you forgot to leave a message on Jeremygbyrne's talk page. He might be a little confused when he returns.Timothy Usher 22:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again to Timothy (now that I can edit here again). Jayjg, it took you a little over twenty minutes from Timothy's request to block me, although policy suggests caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith and warns that blocks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions should be treated especially carefully regardless of the reasoning for the block (and aren't most people given at least some kind of right of reply in equivocal cases like this?) In contrast, it took you over nine hours from Timothy's request to let me know what had happened, although policy on "How to block" instructs blocking admins to notifying users of blocks on their talk pages so others won't expect the blocked user to respond to talkpage contacts. Could you please have a look at this explanation? I feel that the record shows I didn't violate 3RR. Thanks for your careful consideration of this matter. — JEREMY 10:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy, it's nice to see you out of the box. You'd violated under any interpretation, as rewording with same intent is simply gaming the system, but as it stands, even if the four reverts were completely unrelated, they'd still count. This is being discussed and debated now on Misplaced Pages talk:Three-revert rule.Timothy Usher 11:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewording with the same intent, now. Again with the bad faith accusations. To quote the discussion page you directed me to, The spirit of the 3RR has always been "the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars". So, why did you request that I be blocked (and indeed Jayjg, why did you block me?) over six hours after my last edit to the article? — JEREMY 11:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

And, reading further in talk:3RR, how could you make a cogent analysis and recommendations like these, argue consistently for sanity in the 3RR interpretation policy, and then make this "maximal interpretation"-based complaint against me? I was entirely unfamiliar with the particular piece of jurisprudence in question (having last read the policy, several times in fact, two days prior to the 18-April changes — as you may know, given you used that direction to me in your complaint), and would have responded positively to some kind of pointer to it. That might have been a good way to get me to stop what I assume you must have seen as ongoing disruptive editing — although given you'd left it six hours anyway, what was the hurry? Unlike the case under discussion on talk:3RR, I didn't have "the rule explained to again just days before was blocked", so I'm not sure why you, Jayjg, felt it necessary to do this without discussion. I also note your (Jayjg's) statement that "The interpretation that has always existed and been enforced is that any reverts count, and 3 as a "reasonable" upper limit (though not an entitlement) was promoted by Jimbo and voted on by a large consensus." Jayjg, did you see me, four hours later, as just another good example of the problem, to be speedily blocked without warning? — JEREMY 12:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Even under the minimal interpretation, rewording of the very same passage to the same effect counts. The question is, whether it would count had you reverted an unrelated section of the article. Apparantly, despite my spirited argument on Misplaced Pages talk:Three-revert rule, the answer is yes, though I doubt this will ever be consistently applied (and I suspect that may be exactly the point).Timothy Usher 19:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, it took less than two hours to send me the block notice; my apologies — I often have trouble with the way wikipedia time-stamps stuff. However, I stand by my accusation that you (Jayjg) treated me with contempt barely appropriate to a newcomer repeat vandal, and suggest that you need to recuse yourself in these circumstances, given how frequently you and I are in content conflicts over controversial material. — JEREMY 03:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was technically 3RR (I now realise). And yes, you blocked me. But you did it without warning, the opportunity to retract the revert in question (which I certainly would have, under the circumstances) or to stop editing the article (which I did when offered the opportunity). I'm not insinuating there's something irregular, I'm reporting my perceptions. If those perceptions are in error, I apologise. However, the essence of effective cooperation is anticipating the reaction of others in order to minimise misunderstandings like this. In future, please exercise more discretion. — JEREMY 07:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging that; it was indeed the first time I'd been blocked for anything. — JEREMY 08:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Would like your input on...

A new template, called Template:White American that was created today and was propagated across several topics on American ethnic groups. It does not sit well with me, but I'd like more people to weigh in. --Leifern 23:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

An old AfD

You commented in the AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shopping encylopedia. I have started an AfD of a related article at wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shopperpedia. Your comments there would be appreciated. Graham talk 10:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad

I thought your point concerning WP:NOR was well-taken. However, this is an uphill struggle. --Mantanmoreland 15:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

THX

Hi! Thanx for moving my username from ArthurNorbert to NorbertArthur, how it should be. Cheers, Arthur 12 June 2006

WP:RS

The impetus for the mailing list archives section of WP:RS originally derived from an attempt to exclude h-antisemtism from Misplaced Pages, and perhaps not surprisingly arose in the and Martin Luther related pages. You may be interested in this newly created WP:RS section] and the related discussions. You may also note where there is the familiar and false claim to be representing “the consensus.” Collegially, Doright 18:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at International criminal law

You seem to think that the ICC isn't part of international criminal law in your recent edits to crime of apartheid. Strange stuff from my perspective. Anyways, I'll try to tighten up both articles when I get some time. --Ben Houston 22:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's next on my list to source. I have started some preliminary work -- there are many great ones in Google Scholar. --Ben Houston 23:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte

Could you check if Brasoveanul (talk · contribs) is a sock of Bonny? Very similar behavior, thanks. —Khoikhoi 00:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Also Bonaparte recently got into an edit war as GDP with a certain user, and then in Brasoveanul's 2nd edit he makes a comment to him. —Khoikhoi 00:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And this comment makes it the most obvious. —Khoikhoi 06:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I guess I'll ask someone to block him then. —Khoikhoi 21:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Highways

Is there a reason the ArbCom is not touching any pages other than the proposed decision? --SPUI (T - C) 01:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

west bank barrier

The following section is nither NPOV nor meets WP:RS. I am unable to fix it since a trigerhappy admin banned me from that article. can you fix it:

"Apartheid wall" is a controversial derogatory political epithet sometimes used to describe the barrier. Some opponents of the barrier argue it prompotes apartheid in that its extension into the West Bank isolates Palestinian communities and consolidates the annexation of Palestinian land by Israeli settlements. The barrier, it is argued, is part of a "long-term policy of occupation, discrimination and expulsion," which effectively constitutes a feature of Israeli apartheid, a term used as an analogy for South African apartheid.

Thanks,Zeq 05:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

since when a claim by an ISM book is either {{WP:RS]] or WP:NPOV (the book is also self published)

and why, because of one wimsical admin I can no longer edit an article that I have nither disruprted nor engage in any other violation of ? Zeq 06:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

AmericanPatriot29

user:JJstroker/user:Jerry Jones keeps returning, and keeps adding images with incorrect license tags. Not to mention his other "contributions". I've blocked several puppets, Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Jerry Jones, but they keep coming. Could you please checkuser the accounts, in case it helps solve future problems? Thanks, -Will Beback 05:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A request

Hello Jayjg,

I have a request. Could you please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dhimmi#Some_evidences_that_the_article_is_still_disputed

The question is whether "Jewish Encyclopedia" could be cited in wikipedia (Pecher argues that it is outdated). Your input is appreciated.

Thanks,--Aminz 09:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Jayjg. The story is that on Dhimmi article, Pecher thinks the article is both factual and neutral and wants to remove the disputed tags. However several arguments (at Dhimmi) has been made to show the article is not undisputed (using JE). Pecher believes JE is outdated and can not be cited in wikipedia. So, "all" those arguments simply go away. For example, JE states that there were "enlightened" conversions to Islam, Gacs gives a couple of reasons for that, fine, someone else may give other reasons but this at least shows that all conversions to Islam were not either forced or because of the situation of Dhimmi's in Muslim lands. Can you please somehow explain to me how this contradiction could be explained? --Aminz 23:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:IronDuke

Jayg, what is the justification for protecting the pages that IronDuke has asked you to, without any comment? He claims "sock", but provides no proof. I and others should be able to edit anonymouosly if we want, isn't that one of the central pillars of Misplaced Pages? -- BlindVenetian 17:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Still Irate

Hi Jayjg. It seems that User:Irate has been using the IP address 84.9.193.34 recently. The discussion today at Talk:Liverpool#Image bears all the hallmarks of his previous behaviour, while this comment is too much of a coincidence. What do you think? --RFBailey 22:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for a speedy response! --RFBailey 22:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for your help. No rush but when you get a sec, can you sprotect CUPE? Thanks. IronDuke 03:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo

has seen fit to start making threats over a user dispute at Oleg. I have done my best to be reasonable but his trollism and pattern of vandalism (see also Oleg of Novgorod) is driving me to distraction (to the minimal extent it's possible to be upset by virtual interactions with people I've never met). Your counsel and assistance would be greatly appreciated. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If it comes to RfC or similar proceeding,, I will certainly put my two cents in. As it stands, believe me, I will avoid further conversation with him to the greatest extent possible, and certainly limit it to article-related topics. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

JE Citations

any thoughts? --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

re:Judiaam

If you are around, perhaps you would like to comment on this: Slrubenstein | Talk 13:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

blocking of user:Socafan

This user has contacted me disputing the block. Can you review it please and post evidence of sockpuppetry? I'm not convinced myself. Is there any chance this is just a new user who got caught up in the argument at talk:circumcision? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

OK well since you are not sure, and the checkuser result is inconclusive, and Socofan is currently behaving like a wronged user rather than a sockpuppeter I've undone your block. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that you violated the blocking policy: Users should be notified of blocks on their talk pages. That way, other editors will be aware that the user is blocked, and will not expect responses to talk page comments. Furthermore, as you did not present any evidence supporting your accusation, I moot this apparently common practice at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for checkuser#Enforcement of policies and Misplaced Pages talk:Blocking policy#presenting evidence to support an accusation. I hope this will turn the whole unpleasant incident into something helpful in bettering the project. Happy editing in the future, and please try to be nice to Dabljuh. Socafan 17:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

ZimZum? Is that you? Tomer 23:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do something fruitful rather than making more unsubstantiated accusations. As I saw, the block against the user you named was removed as in his case no evidence had been presented either. Socafan 23:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks removed. Stop reposting it! Socafan 23:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it time to open an RfC re: User:Socafan? Tomer 06:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Even more Irate

He's moved to the 84.9.211.x range: see here. --RFBailey 14:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks: sorry for the hassle! --RFBailey 17:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect this is him as well..... --RFBailey 22:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Briangotts

Oh, nice, the guy abuses rollback button, calls me vandal and troll without providing a single diff, refuses to substantiate his position in any meaningful way... And yet not a word of reproach for him? Talk about problem admins then... RfA procedures should clearly be revised if we have admins who seem not to know that rollback is for fighting vandalism, seem to be unaware that such things as edit summaries exist, and mark most of their postings as "minor". When he arrived here with his delations, I hoped that you would help to compensate Brian's obvious lack of experience in disputes and admin space by a helpful advice, but now I see that you seem to encourage him for further confrontation. Sigh... --Vandal and troll 19:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

I thought your condensation of this contentious page was good. It still has repetition and needs work. At parts it reads as if it were written by the Iranian Foreign Ministry. You might want to take a look at the latest revert by user Liftam. This user insists on deleting descriptions of the individuals who contest the translations. I can't touch (3RR).--Mantanmoreland 15:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I wonder if too much space is devoted to the whole translation issue?--Mantanmoreland 16:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I yanked the Holocaust stuff out of the Israel section. Basically this all started when some editors were screaming that MA was in the anti-Semitic people category and there was no reference to his anti-Semitism. So it was added. Then they started picking at what was added, and in the process built up the "translation" business to much more than it really is. Now they're pushing to get rid of the category. It just goes on and on.--Mantanmoreland 20:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was that in my mini-rewrite I moved his comments on the Holocaust down to the anti-Semitism section. It has nothing to do with Israel, as you point out.--Mantanmoreland 00:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

for this

btw, how do I get a fair hearing since Tony-Sidaway is both the prosecutor, judge and exceusioner that decided how to interpret ArbCom rulling and since then no other admin is diligiant enough to take a look (excpet the 3-4 that told him he was way overreacting) Zeq 18:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of section title: "Relationship between religious and racial anti-Semitism"

Please take a look . --Doright 19:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Banu Nadir

User:Pecher's remarkable work on this article is coming under ridiculous attack. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it's no longer permissible to portray Muhammad "in a negative light." Funny, the authors of all those hadiths didn't seem to think it was so negative. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

When it rains...

And now this mishugas...

-Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

DVD+R/W's RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which ended with the result of (74/0/0). If there is anything I can help with feel free to ask. Also, if there is anything I am doing wrong, please point that out as well. I look forward to working with you in the future. Highest regards, DVD+ R/W 02:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation?

Jayjg, I am curious as to whether there is some mediation process between users. Every day I attempt to clear things up with Netscott, and every day he comes around to start things up again. It honestly seems to me as if he has a running list of people he'd like to drive off of Misplaced Pages, the last one was FairNBalanced, I defended FNB against a proposed indefinite ban, and now he's latched onto me. He acts as if he is the sole arbitrer of good faith, and by some arcane and indefeasable calculus, he's concluded (or at least claims) that I don't have it.Timothy Usher 11:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

FYI -- and in response to comments made by yourself and another editor -- I boiled down the section of this article (see my most recent edit) on the overblown "translation issue" re his remarks on Israel. Over time it had become made ever-lengthier by POV-pushers, thereby giving undue weight to a minor semantic quibble. I also condensed the article generally.--Mantanmoreland 15:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)]]

Why use talk page ?

weeeks and weeks of attempts to reason and compromise with homey blatent violation of almost every wikipedia policy have lead no where so I wonder why use talk page at all ? do you think he get convinced by any argument. He knows very well that what he did was a clear violation of WP:Not and he used material that violates WP:RS. Zeq 03:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

More sock attacks

I just created a number of new articles on the members of the Portland Seven. They are under attack by the sock, again. The articles are Patrice Lumumba Ford, Habis Abdulla al Saoub, Ahmed Bilal, Muhammad Bilal, October Lewis, and Jeffrey Battle (and CUPE again). IronDuke 15:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

--Pilot|guy 22:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Israeli propaganda

Hi Jay: Meet the new Category:Israeli propaganda. All the best, IZAK 08:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

maybe you can verify my translation

Talk:Gaza_beach_blast#Haaretz_exact_wording

Tnx, Zeq 12:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Beat me to the block

I had just written up an extensive 3RR notice on Ulritz for his reverts on Zionist political violence, when your notice showed up about his edits on Qana shelling. I would suggest examining what other mischief this user has been up to on other articles. Here's additional material, in case it's needed later:

Three revert rule violation on Zionist political violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ulritz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to 14:25, 15 June 2006
• 1st revert 07:12, 16 June 2006
• 2nd revert: 13:01, 16 June 2006
• 3rd revert: 14:29, 16 June 2006
• 4th revert: 04:16, 17 June 2006
• 5th revert: 09:07, 17 June 2006

New tactic: repeatedly adding "{{fact}}" after the word "used":

• 15:34, 18 June 2006
• 05:38, 19 June 2006
• 11:05, 19 June 2006
• 17:28, 19 June 2006
• 05:41, 20 June 2006

Time report made: 15:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Ulritz was warned on his talk page previously for possible 3RR violation, during his first round of reverts on Zionist political violence. Has ignored the extensive discussion on the article's talk page and repeatedly re-inserted "{{fact}}" after the word "used", contending that "Zionist terrorism" is only "regarded" as a political epithet by supporters of Israel. Was asked on the article talk page to desist from edit warring.

Additional background: Appears particularly knowledgeable of Misplaced Pages editing for a new user: first edit (on April 25) was to place the German coat of arms on his user page; second was to place the coat of arms and flag of Prussia on his talk page; third edit was a revert. Marks most edits, even when responding to talk pages, as "minor". Principally only edits articles involving Germany, WWII, and Israel. Attempted to slip a claim into The Holocaust article that "some elements, including the figures, are disputed" with a link to Holocaust denial-- over which he likewise edit-warred, claiming "it's a good idea to present all POV ". --Leflyman 15:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oversight

This issue has been resolved. :) --Brion 17:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

83.91.187.9 at Mahmoud Ahmedinejad

Also I do believe that he has violated 3RR, in addition to his edits being over-the-top POV pushing. He may additionally be a sockpuppet of another editor. I am fairly new to the administrative procedures but I think something needs to be done about this editor. --Mantanmoreland 23:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

RE; Blocking and arbitration request

I'd be happy to discuss this with you off-channel, such as on IRC or through email. --Ryan Delaney 23:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Norm Coleman

Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of Norm Coleman article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 03:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI

What ever occured with the nakba mediation ?

best, Zeq 15:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This photo

This is a dishonest edit:

the caption on the actual photo is correct - this is part of the wall on the green line but whoever put into the article wants to Push a POV that this is a wall Israel placed between palestinians areas (where in fact it is between Israel and the west bank.

It is very unfair to ban me from that article. The ban was not for good cause and other than the admins who expressed to Tony that the ban was not warrented no one seems to review the whole ban and hopefully undo Tony one sided and wrong action.

btw, Tony promised that he will review Homey edits. I am sure if he would have done that he would see how POV pushing they were and my attempts were a good faith attempt to NPOV homey's POV pushing. This is not what anyone should be banned for. Zeq 15:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Israelwall.jpg - original caption mention the green line.

the editor was notified on his bad faith edit but this is his reply: Zeq 16:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Hi Jay,

You have demonstrated to me many times your ability to find the NPOV "golden path".

Wonder what do you think of this:  ? Zeq 19:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny socks

Would you mind doing a checkuser on User:Sonofzion and User:216.249.5.164? Considering the subjects and the extensive knowledge of WP processes of these 'new' editors, I suspect that they are socks of Homeontherange being used to skirt a 48 block. FeloniousMonk 22:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. FeloniousMonk 22:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Peace under fire : Israel/Palestine and the International Solidarity Movement, ed. Josie Sandercock, et al. New York: Verso, 2004, p. 192