Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Notmyrealname (talk | contribs) at 23:20, 21 April 2007 (ArbReq/NYScholar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Usertalk-sprotect2

Talk archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Ebionites nominated for FA

The Ebionites article has been nominated for Featured Article. You are invited to show your support or suggest further improvements to the article. Ovadyah 07:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad Redirect

Hey jay, I was wondering if you could fix it so that teleosts redirects to Teleostei instead of Actinopterygii (which is the current situation). It is a pretty minor thing but it is kinda annoying. Thank you.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I kinda thought that you needed admin privledges to change a redirect. Sorry.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Maybe not worth blocking, but Panairjdde popped in earlier today on 81.211.195.151. Dppowell 15:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure User:Anriz is him; I filed the RFCU. Dppowell 16:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

RfC re Cohn's review

Since we've become hopelessly entangled in an edit-war, i've requested comment from the community. Itayb 19:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

What did you do here? Voretus 15:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Help with sockpupettry

Hi Jayig, I need your help. REDVERS, one of the Administrators that is working with the Fellowship of Friends page, left me the following message:

Hi, Mario. On the talk page of Fellowship of Friends, I offered Misplaced Pages's best way for how to resolve these disputes (basically WP:RS); sadly, this was basically ignored and very obvious sockpuppetry was resorted to instead, by people who held the high ground in the dispute.

I wrote to REDVERS but he didn't reply to me. Do you know how can I find out who the sock pupeteers are based on this and this? Thanks a lot! Mario Fantoni 18:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jay

I've been around, just kinda incommunicado. Since I'm here, have you seen this? Interesting timing, I think, on the nomination, and the rationales being put into supporting it are, I think, rather poorly-considered. Your thoughts would be welcome, I'm sure. There are probably multiple threads about the nomination on wikirev wikiwatch and whatever עמלק's forum site is... Cheers, Tomer 03:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I would appreciate if in the future when you revert you not use the edit summary "tidying." A new user might forget to assume good faith and accuse of being deceptive. We would not want that. KazakhPol 05:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like we have ourselves a deal. On another note, I would appreciate it if you would not refer to me as a non-native speaker of English as I am 1. A native speaker, and 2. Have a better command of its finer points. KazakhPol 05:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's all right for you to say you're "tidying," it's surely okay for others too. SlimVirgin 05:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Methinks you missed the point. KazakhPol 05:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand your last post. Are you referring to the comment immediately above this? That was directed to SlimVirgin. I am fixing the formatting to make that clear in this edit. Please, if she missed that, point it out to her. I want an inane response about how I should not insult Mrs. Amal. KazakhPol 05:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I want one from SlimVirgin. Have I somehow not made that clear? How much complaining do I have to do? Do I need to insult Amal's honor? That can be arranged. >:( KazakhPol 05:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. I wish Misplaced Pages had more kind souls. It would be so much more entertaining. KazakhPol 05:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

article edits

Hi Jayjg. The entry entitled "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" is currently locked due to various edit conflicts and issues. I would like to invite you to add your comments to my comments on the article's talk page, to indicate our overall disagreement with this article's distorted outlook, and its use of such a loaded word to misrepresent Israel's position and actions. Thanks. --Sm8900 18:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

IP block 12.75.40.0/24

Did you mean for the 12.75.40.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) block to not be AO? We have an unblock-en-L complaint from what appears to be a collateral damage editor who wants to know what's going on. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 01:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that AO isn't working against Jon specifically, or ? Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert 01:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Thermopylae

When you locked the battle of Thermopylae page it was after referenced material that the Persian army was over 300,000 was deleted. Could you please remove the protection or at least allox a restoration of the referenced material? Ikokki 09:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We're in the middle of improving the article, I don't think that when you locked it there was a rv-war going on. Sure there's editors with nationalist motives who will always be causing trouble. On the other hand there are also editors like Ikokki, myself and Jagged who are making contributions to the article in a serious level, and we preferred that it remains unlocked. Miskin 12:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If there was such a thing as an edit war at the time it was Miskin and Jagged85 that were involved. They tended to edit out each other's edits. Mine usually were not edited out. Ikokki 07:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a consensus to write "estimates vary" at the warbox and have the different estimates discussed in the appropriate section. If there was a way to protect the warbox only it would be great... Ikokki 07:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ariel Toaff

Hi, Jay. I'm concerned by one (if not more) of the external links in the Ariel Toaff article, in particular the one entitled "Jews Still Use Christian Blood to Bake Passover Matzos". The interview is repellent in the extreme, and I'm inclined to delete it without a second thought, but in light of episodes like the continuing Katz debacle at Palestinian refugee, Palestinian exodus and UNRWA, I'm really at sea with the question of what's includible -- or, more importantly, what's deletable: whatever the guidelines say, the threshold for inclusion seems to have fallen so low that demonstrating that some rubbish was actually published in a verifiable source is deemed sufficient to justify putting it in an article -- the rest is treated as a content dispute: I've got my sources, you've got yours: see you in (wiki)court. It's rather dispiriting, I have to say. At any rate, what to do about the link in question? --Rrburke 13:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I read the interview again, and it's really putrid. I pulled it, but would still appreciate guidance on the threshold for inclusion of sources. --Rrburke 13:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Jay -- thanks for your reply. Well, Humus Sapiens restored the link with the rationale of "restoring evidence that the libel is still alive". To my mind, this link could be tossed per WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided 12: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article: the subject of the article is Ariel Toaff, and secondarily about Pasque di sangue and the attendant controversy, not the blood libel per se. To my way of thinking, the purpose of an article about Ariel Toaff is to provide readers information about Ariel Toaff, not to use an article about Ariel Toaff for the purpose of providing "evidence that the libel is still alive." But whatever. Candidly, I'm beginning to tire of the whole enterprise. --Rrburke 03:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you all are discussing Toaff here, why not try to offer your rationale as to why the mere mention of his name is constantly removed from the Blood libel against Jews article when it is so obviously relevant to the subject matter? I even tried comprising by placing his name in a "See also" section, yet that too was removed. So what's going on here? I mean, it's not like this guy is a Neo Nazi or Muslim extremist or anything like that...he is a PROFESSOR (an Israeli professor!) that wrote a SCHOLARLY book on the subject, yet still all reference to him (however brief) is methodically removed from the page. It wouldn't be censorship would it? --Wassermann 05:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The proper place for this discussion is Talk:Blood libel against Jews, but the answer to your question is no: it isn't censorship. The guideline on exceptional claims is quite clear: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people" . The policy on undue weight is equally clear: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Toaff's work is an "exceptional claim" from a single source and represents a "tiny-minority view" and so doesn't belong in the article..

Apologies to Jay for invading his user talk page. --Rrburke 03:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Rescinded the claims" -- has he back off of them altogether, or just, as he said a couple of months ago, decided to "re-edit the passages which comprised the basis of the distortions and falsehoods that have been published in the media"? --Rrburke 03:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I took the position here that since he "has withdrawn the book from circulation pending re-editing, not only are there not multiple reliable sources making this exceptional claim, currently there isn't even one. The guideline on reliable sources states that 'Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published sources.' No reliable, published source makes this claim, so it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages."

You may wish to weigh in, as I expect some ensuing weeping and gnashing of teeth. --Rrburke 00:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yigal Amir external link

Hi again, Jay. I think I recall you saying that you speak/read Hebrew. If that's the case and you have a moment, could you have a quick look at the Hebrew-only site yigal-amir.com, which links from the Yigal Amir article, to assess whether it's an appropriate external link for WP? --Rrburke 15:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Juan Cole

I see that you protected Juan Cole. Could you please post a note on the talk page or on Armon's user talk page asking him to engage in the discussion or in the that I requested? The edit war is over a minor issue, but he is incredibly stubborn about it; he refuses to engage in the discussion on the talk page (other than to make unsubstantiated assertions about OR that are manifestly untrue) and he has ignored my attempt to compromise and my attempt to pursue mediation. csloat 21:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way you could specifically ask Armon to participate in the discussion? By protecting "his" version of the page, you have left him no incentive to bother with the discussion or the mediation, and I fear it will be a long time before the page can be unprotected. csloat 21:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

His "activity" on the page consists of posting quotes there without explanation. I have explained why each quote actually supports the version of the page that I supported. He has not explained any of his arguments. He has so far refused to agree to mediation on the page. csloat 21:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer the community-enforced mediation that I signed off on already. csloat 22:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I come to you with hat-in-hand concerning our recent discussions at Talk:David Irving. My apology is concerning two things I said: First, in my asking you to look at my references when you had, in fact, already commented on them. Second, in my saying that you had "moved the target", when in fact you were consistent all along with your stated position. I take pride in not being sloppy and not misrepresenting others' comments on accident or on purpose, so I feel a sense of shame. My sole excuse is that I was very tired; I came home early from a concert and instead of jumping into bed, jumped on you. Again, I apologize. --09:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(PS: I haven't read your comments since signing off last night, and this apology doesn't change my disagreement with your position.) --Otheus 09:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

LMAO

"not that big of a deal". Yes, indeed! *uncontrollable laughter. Otheus 10:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

RfC David Irving

I was about to file an RfC on an unrelated article, when I noticed the RfC on David Irving. Apparantly you forgot to make a section on the talk page and link to it, which I have done now: David Irving talk, link to talk section. Hope you don't mind. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 21:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. —AldeBaer 21:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Judaism and Christianity

You are welcome to change anything I wrote on this page just put in a cite for each time you do. Also please read what mt cites first before jumping in. BernardZ 02:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS!! SchmuckyTheCat IS THE ONE WHO DELETED AN ENTIRE SECTION (NOAH - POPULAR CULTURE) WITHOUT DISCUSSION!!! WHY DON'T YOU BLOCK HIM? ALL I AM DOING IS TRYING TO PREVENT HIS VANDALISM!! I TAKE OFFENSE AT BEING ATTACKED FOR TRYING TO STOP HIS VANDALISM. Musicman88

Request For Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/David Irving, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidudeman (talk • contribs) 22:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

input request

Do you think this remark oversteps the bounds of WP:CIV? Tomer 22:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute on Israel's infobox

Perhaps you'd want to contribute to the discussion on Template_talk:Israel-InfoBox#Request_for_Comment:_Israel.27s_area_figure_in_the_infobox. Isarig 02:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/David Irving. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Unblock

Thank you very much. —AldeBaer 23:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

POV?

Please explaint to me why you reverted my edits in "Kingdom of Judah", "Jewish Ethnic Divisions" and "Kingdom of Israel and Judah" and how they were in any way POV. Cheers -Kaliqx

Which part? The descendents from Israelites in general or Tribe of Israel in specific?

So saying that Jews are the descendents of Israelites is POV? I didn't realize that. It's like saying that the English are the descendents of the Angolos, Saxons and Jutes is POV. Give me a break, Jayjg. I didn't realize this kind of stuff needed a citation.

Notes on Jerusalem as largest city

Hello. I was surprised to see that you unilaterally re-added the sources at that location even though that was not the result of the discussion at talk:Jerusalem#Please don't remove any references. Most of us think the endnotes are excessive, and suggested an alternative resolution to the problem you mentioned there. nadav 03:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You may feel that way, but you should not brush off people who disagree with you so cavalierly, justifying your changes only with quotes from Dr. Seuss. As one of the most prolific and experienced editors, I am sure you know that this is not the wikipedia way. Respectfully, nadav 03:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Libby

Hi there. We're obviously on the same page regarding the Libby thing. However, the tone of your recent postings to the talk page is really not helping. I've found that the best method in dealing with people like this is to take the high road. I don't think the other editor is making much headway in convincing other folks anyway. Cheers. Notmyrealname 18:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware, trust me. He's even listed Libby on the Temple page. But we need to keep our part of the discussion on a grown-up level. Are there any other folks you might be able to enlist to weigh in on the subject? Notmyrealname 18:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The latest treatise made me laugh. He also reinserted his weird rfc on the bio page (but left yours in). Just remember that the guy is his own worst enemy. Don't get sucked down to his level. He has a curious habit of making personal attacks and then immediately denying that he is making them. Thanks for reverting the Temple page edit. These guys really think that anyone who deals with Israel should have a box saying whether they are a Jew or not. Creepy. Notmyrealname 04:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The rambling rfc is back on the politics page. I just re-deleted the temple page. I need to check out on this issue for the rest of the day. Notmyrealname 17:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Islamophilia

When I began nominating Islamophilia for deletion, I ran into . Apparently user Limboot created the page after it was already deleted. The article has all the same problems it used to have (i.e. WP:NEO and WP:ATT). I think the article should be deleted and salted. It seems that it was deleted at least twice, and recreated at least twice . Also, user Limboot seems to be trolling. Please see and . I will revert my AfD nomination since I noticed that the page was already deleted.

Israeli Settlements

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you're stalking me, tracing the pages I've visited and the correspondence I've sent. I contacted other Users to get their opinion on the page instead of just butting heads with you.

Don't bother to leave pissy little warnings on my Userpage, either. I've tried reasoning with you on the subject already. MarkB2 04:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin RfC

I took your advice, and posted my comments on the noticeboard, where they were promptly deleted by Jeffrey O. Gustafson . Since I did this at your suggestion, I would appreciate it if you would intervene in the event that Mr. Gustafson deletes it again. --NathanDW 05:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know about the RfC until it was already posted. In fact, I didn't know there was such a thing as an RfC until it was already posted. I found out about it because of a notice on SlimVirgin's talk page. As far as I knew, I was doing it correctly -- it said "users who have tried and failed to solve the dispute." It didn't mention a time frame. Now that you point out the rule to me, I can see that it exists. So, I guess you were technically correct to invalidate my signature. What puzzles me is why you would make a big deal over a minor technical error on my part, thus suppressing discussion over what seems to be a whopping ethical breach on the part of SlimVirgin. It almost looks like a Code of silence thing working here. --Don't lose that number 14:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair

Was going to correct "document film" to "documentary film" but found no edit tab. Seems you protected the page w/o putting the appropriate template in place. Which may also explain why it's still protected, 40 days later... That means it doesn't show up on the list of most stale protects, I suppose. Andyvphil 14:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a bot that does that, as far as I know. Regardless, the issues don't seem to have been worked on on the Talk: page; a specific individual seems to edit Misplaced Pages solely for the purpose of edit-warring on this and 3 other articles. He doesn't appear to like to use the Talk: pages, but he regularly agitates to have pages unprotected so that he can start edit-warring again. As a result, I don't think the parties are ready for unprotection. Jayjg 23:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought the locking admin added a "protection2" (or other) template, like this: , and that triggers it showing up on category:protected_pages or somesuch. Andyvphil 13:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha RfA thanks

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! And thanks for your kind words and support. --Shirahadasha 04:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

quick question

mind if I steal your nifty talk page header? BTW: I would like to apologize if you feel I insulted you personally at all, I got a little too heated but to make personal attacks was not ever my intention. VanTucky 05:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR

I did not violate 3RR. I made one initial edit, and three reverts back to that edit. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

These were not simple reverts. I edited the section specifically to address concerns regarding WP:NPOV. I have asked for additional editors to weigh in on the matter at article RFC and do not intend to issue any additional reverts at this point. I maintain that my editing, while it does go up against the limits of 3RR (something I usually avoid) does not break it. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel you must issue a report at WP:AN/3RR, do so. I stand by my edits and maintain that removal of sourced information (which I made a specific effort to make more compliant with WP:NPOV) is more consistent with Misplaced Pages policy than removal of that information because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Mhm, so have you my friend.
* 02:49, April 20, 2007 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) (92,804 bytes) ("militant" groups who enter foreign countries to "capture" their nationals are "kidnapping")
20:59, April 20, 2007 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) m (92,804 bytes) (Reverted edits by Liftarn (talk) to last version by Jayjg)
02:45, April 20, 2007 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) m (92,804 bytes) (Undid revision 124206766 by 72.189.173.73 (talk)) Ahmad Husseini 23:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours. Ahmad Husseini 23:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

kidnapping or capturing

Hi, Please pay attention to 2006 Lebanon War. They've used capturing so we can use capturing too.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate editorial war and prefer to discuss about it in the talk page. I can think we can solve it easily like other issues in that article.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted Hezbollah to one of your former editions and made a separate part for consensus building:Talk:Hezbollah# Consensus building. By the way please forgive Ahmadhusseini. As his adopter I know he was not familiar with the rule. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about your editing on controversial articles

You have made quite a few WP:3RR referrals in the past several days against editors (including me) who you were revert warring with. I'm concerned that you are using 3RR for a purpose it was not intended – as a weapon to win edit wars, rather than an "electric fence" to stop them from raging out of control. I found a number of instances in the past week where you have made exactly three reverts to articles within a 24-hour period. As per the 3RR policy page: "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system." I am not accusing you of gaming the system, but I do think you have allowed yourself to get sucked into a number of edit wars (as I allowed myself to be drawn into the edit war on Racism last night), and I suggest that you reconsider your editing habits and make an effort to be less quick on the trigger when it comes to reverting to your preferred version. Here are a few instances where you've made 3 reverts in one day:

Hezbollah

• – 02:45, 20 April 2007
• – 02:49, 20 April 2007
• – 20:59, 20 April 2007

Temple Rodef Shalom

• – 23:12, 19 April 2007
• – 23:48, 19 April 2007
• – 23:58, 19 April 2007

Racism

• – 01:15, 20 April 2007
• – 03:56, 20 April 2007
• – 04:27, 20 April 2007

Noah

• – 21:38, 15 April 2007
• – 00:40, 16 April 2007
• – 01:17, 16 April 2007

Hamas

• – 03:15, 8 April 2007
• – 14:26, 8 April 2007
• – 14:49, 8 April 2007

In several of these cases, you advised other editors to "be careful of WP:3RR" in your edit summaries . I find this to be problematic because it indicates an effort to use the 3RR to win, rather than prevent, edit wars. I hope you will take these concerns into account and not simply dismiss them as sour grapes. You have made many useful contributions to articles, and persistent edit warring only detracts from that. I intend to take a break from politically controversial articles for now, to avoid the possibility of being drawn into more editing fights, and instead concentrate on getting my numismatic articles to WP:GA or WP:FA status. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for input

I'm asking you and a few others for input. I'm moderating a debate on an article. Seems there is a dispute as to whether secondary sources are valid and that hinges on whether the source's characterization of the following quote is accurate. How would you rate the following quotation, on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being completely neutral, 5 being completely anti-semitic:

The reason behind this whole charade of Jewish ecumenism is one, and one reason only: It is so the Jews can rebuild the nation of Israel that was lost after the time of Solomon. Everything the Jews do today is motivated by that single thought, and they are shrewdly using the Catholic Church to help them accomplish their goal. Prelates in the Catholic Church think that by helping the Jews they are fulfilling the mandate of neighborly love. In their perversion of the Gospel, they have convinced themselves that this mandate cannot include converting the Jews, for that would cause "offense." . They have deceived themselves, and the Jews of today are feeding off this deception in an effort to build their long awaited "nation state." The Jews have no interest in Christ or Christianity. They are merely using Catholics as pawns for their own self-interest. When they have succeeded, then they will persecute the very Catholic Church that helped them gain their land, for Judaism, as has been historically true, can have no competitors.

If you need more context, just look in my contrib history. --Otheus 21:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbReq/NYScholar

Started an arb request here . Hoping this will lead to a resolution.