I just wanted you to know that I've thought about it and I'm confident in your abilities as an admin. By that I mean were you not an admin, and were nominated for adminship today, I would support you. I've noted such at User:Blankfaze/admin, where I record all of my RFA votes. I want to again apologise for harsh things I have said in the past. Best of luck.
BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A request for arbitration has been placed against your abuse of admin powers.A.Khalil 05:03, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Can I ask why you reverted my changes on Farouk Kaddoumi? Thanks.
I would appreciate your comments on why this entry was changed? Thanks.
See my comments at the talk page of Jewish eschatology and let me know there if what I am saying seems accurate.--Truthaboutchabad 03:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi Jay, please give your opnion at User talk:IZAK#Ritva/Rashba [1] Thanks IZAK 06:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You have the following statement under the entry Jewish Refugees: 'Unlike Palestinian refugees, Jewish refugees had no assistance from U.N. bodies such as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.'
Now why is this relevant? If it is relevant that Palestinian refugees received UN assistance, surely it is relevant that Israel met its obligations towards Jewish refugees by relying on reparations from Germany and financial aid from a number of other countries?
Jayjg, as I've pointed out elsewhere, you reverted my edits to History of Lebanon multiple times without explaining yourself on the discussion page, and on a few occasions, you reverted to a patently non-factual version, e.g., the version with the erroneous chronology of the withdrawal of US forces, which I had corrected. Furthermore, on the Norman Finkelstein page, you have twice insisted on inserting "According to Noam Chomsky" before a statement of fact about Finkelstein's review of Joan Peters. In your comments on discussion pages, I have noticed your frequent and uncritical use of the terms "anti-Zionist" and "anti-Israel", as well as your identification of those perspectives - however you define them - with Noam Chomsky. You do not once quote from Chomsky to substantiate your claims, nor do you give any indication that you have read Chomsky's writings on the relevant topics; nonetheless, your views in this regard clearly influence your behavior in Wikipedia forums, cf. the History of Lebanon discussion, where you wrongly conflated my edits with Chomsky's analyses and used your identification of Chomsky with the "anti-Israeli" camp as a pretext for impugning my credibility as an editor, apparently because I was citing quotations from two of Chomsky's books. You seem to view yourself as a "watchdog" of Wikipedia's Middle East discourse, correcting any "anti-Israel" bias that might crop up; however, in my interactions with you, you have seemed to follow a pre-emptive policy of reverting unwelcome changes without explaining them. I've asked you to explain yourself numerous times, left questions on your talk page, and so on, but you have steadfastly refused to engage with me. I am tempted to conclude that you feel your admin status exempts you from the requirement that one critically engage with his fellow editors when making changes to an article. I don't want to think this about you, but other comments on your discussion page seem to substantiate it - it seems a number of people have had issues with your pre-emptive and unexplained edits. I again invite you to respond to the many questions I have posed to you, here and elsewhere; but in general, I'm concerned that you are using the "NPOV" mantra to imbue Middle East articles with a fairly crude pro-Israel cant, and I hope that you will explain and document your edits from now on. sneaky 09:05, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
A few final comments. You wrote on my talk page: "I've explained my reasoning quite clearly on a number of occasions, including my explanation of why I reverted your POV edits". Anyone who takes the time to review your "explanations" will realize the absurdity of these recycled falsehoods; I have personally explained the absurdity of these and other claims elsewhere[5]. As I suggested there, "on the Arbitration Policy page, I see the following as one possible 'Outcome': an 'Arbitration Decree' stating 'User X, refrain from editing this group of articles' [6]. I think there is plenty of evidence on this page to substantiate a Decree stating 'User Jayjg, refrain from editing articles pertaining to the Middle East'." Given the poor enforcement mechanisms available for policing fraudulent editors such as yourself, it's not worth my time to pursue this any further. However, perhaps these posts will be of use to editors in the future who wish to hold you accountable for the sort of inappropriate and harmful practices I have documented. sneaky 00:35, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
I'm too much of an ignoramus to involve myself in Nazarene. Perhaps WP:RFC will quieten things down again. Please use the 3RR scrupulously against all sides. JFW | T@lk 21:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My edit at Simon bar Kokhba was just to show you what your behaviour is like. When I read your talkpage, I see several people complaining about your revert their edits all of them. It's quite annoying when someone follows you to undo all your edits, so please stop that. I'm a normal Wikipedian, not a vandal. Jcbos 23:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I will be working on the article, but need to find time to study your articles and others first. Also, I'm hoping to pull in some real lawyers, not just people like me who play one on wikipedia. :-) --Leifern 19:44, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
Jayjg, I can assure you that there is no consensus of administrators, nor is the issue whether or not there are other administrators willing to ban that Troll. Administrators carry out community made policy. Whether an administrator, or all the administrators, want to ban that troll is not the point, the point is, has the community given them the authority to do that. They have clearly not in this case. Please, follow policy. Mark Richards 21:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Continuing to block this user. Appologies if it was not you that actually blocked him/her, I may have mis-spoken there. Mark Richards 00:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) Actually, I think it was you that blocked him. That's the behavior I'm talking about. Mark Richards 00:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In that case I owe you my sincere appologies, I misread the block logs and thought that you had blocked that user. Mark Richards 17:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Greetings. I usually stay clear of the minefield of Israeli-Palestinian articles, but I just added an article on the American Palestine Public Affairs Forum. Since you're interested in this sort of thing, I thought you might want to look it over for accuracy and possible bias. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:45, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful note in the Votes for Deletion page for Boethusians. I went through the history of the person who initiated the vfd and she has made numerous inappropriate vfd recommends (see Pan-Turkism, for instance). Anyway I have adjusted the article to reflect the Jewish Encyc template. --Briangotts 21:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for jumping in. I was in the middle of searching for and relinking stuff in a bunch of articles to the new name when my boss suggested I actually do some work. The nerve!--Cberlet 22:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Okay, but ask Wesley too, maybe Danny too -- I am sure they know more than I do about the origins and history of the term. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I need to do a little research, I hope I can get to it tomorrow, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Heh. I was expected to see something about the "Church of the Nazarene". I'm tracking down that prophecy reference in Matthew, btw. And no, there is no generally accepted resolution at this time. Give it twenty to fifty years, though. NathanZook 06:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Jay, I've put the rewrite up. I've let James know too, as I saw he'd commented on the talk page. There are still a few things I'd like to add to it; details at Talk:Night (book). Feel free to revert or edit as you see fit. SlimVirgin 02:39, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Jay... it means a lot to hear that from you :) But, I've got to leave. I can't let my Christianity slide any longer. I'm sure you understand. If you need to get in contact with me, I'll be updating my Wikipedia email address so just fire off an email through there... in about 3 weeks time I'll not be contactable through the old email address. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your vote on my adminship nomination. Your support vote, and confidence in me, is very much appreciated. Best regards, — mark ✎ 22:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanx for redirecting to Talk:Bible to find the lengthy discussion initiated by User:Jcbos in his crusade to remove Christian before Bible in some contexts in some articles on Wikipedia. A poll was held on the Dutch Wikipedia yesterday. He got the upperhand. He started a poll here - and it looks like he won't get the upperhand here. Gebruiker:Dedalus 09:22, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg...Thanks for the heads up on the Christian\Bible debate...I've got it open in another window and will check it out as soon as I'm done with this note...I just wanted to inquire as to why Jewish ethnocentrism still exists as an (albeit content=_NULL) article, when the votes have been cast and tallied, and no comment has been logged on its TALK page in about a month. Kol tov. -t TShilo12 07:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Jayjg. I'd like to speak with you about a ban to an IP I sometimes post from. To make a long story short, it's a school IP and I know the vandal (not me). I'd rather not discuss it in front of everyone though. Could you either tell me your email or mail me, at Allerian486 at gmail dot com? I'm sure we'll be able to work something out. Thanks in advance for your time. --BDD 04:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The Ustashe page blocks edit because of a spam filter. Could you do something about this?
Thanks,
06:04, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Here you go. This is the exact message I got.
Spam protection filter From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to an external site.
See m:Spam blacklist for a full list of blocked sites. If you believe that the spam filter is mistakenly blocking the edit, then please contact an m:Administrator. The following is the section of the page that triggered the filter:
The following text is what triggered our spam filter: "http://www.ustasa.xs3...com"
Return to Main Page.
I put 2 more dots because it keeps putting a filter up.
Guy Montag 06:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I can edit now.
Guy Montag 06:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A couple of posters are having a debate with me at whether having a Jewish mother makes Nicolas Sarkozy Halachicly Jewish. I of course, said that it does, but we are having a friendly disagreement. Yet the poster is adamant at putting in some relativistic mumbo jumbo which has nothing to do with Jewish religious law. Sarkozy was born Jewish but he was raised in and embraced Catholism. I wrote that exactly, but their attempt to whitewash information on his Jewish origins is troubling.
Could you come in and arbitrate or post your opinion? Thanks
Guy Montag 11:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This has as much to do with ethnicity as it does religion. A person born to a Jewish mother becomes ethnically, though not always religiously Jewish. I was merely noting his status as on a religio-ethnic basis, as Jews are a religio-nation. As for the addition, it was a good compromise and I added the note to arbitrate before I read your correction. Nontheless, your statetement that different streams have different definitions is wrong. The Reform movement definition of who is Jewish, through mumbolegalism called "patralineal descent" is an adaption from the Halachic tradition of a mother being Jewish. Even the liberal streams accept this, they are just trying to adopt that any member who is Jewish in the family can be regarded as Jewish, mother or father. I merely stated the long held legal tradition. As for their definition, it is merely an adaption on their part to fix the cognitive dissonance of the fact that they are assimilating.
22:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Guy Montag 22:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Guy Montag 22:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my RfA. I very much appreciate your confidence in me. Please let me know if you see something I should (or shouldn't) be doing as an admin. Regards, Patrick. Carbonite | Talk 13:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Regarding GRider's 'Socratic' VfD nominations and the ensuing reactions by voters, please read and comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GRider2. Thanks. Radiant_* 12:23, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Hey. With respect to the source: I was a bit distracted earlier, I should note that I mistranslated it somewhat in haste (also I ran out of edit summary space, I could not fit 'people' in it). The title reads literally: (Korot Am Yisrael-- קורות עם ישראל), but by 'Israel' they actually meant 'Jewish,' that should have been very clear to me, but still manged to overlook it. The reference, then, in English reads:
Shamir, Illana and Shlomo Shavit (General Editors), Encyclopedia of Jewish History: Events and Eras of the Jewish People (Massada Publishers, 1986, Israel) ISBN 0816012202.
For our immediate purpose, what is cited entails a relatively cursory discussion (revolving first sround modern Antisemitism, and second, a history of the Kibbutz Movement), often very instructive in what it dosen't say rather than what it does. I can find more far direct and specialized sources for this/these issue/s, but I didn't feel what I said was that controversial (not that I’m implying that Slim thought it was, I do consider her request to be perfectly legitimate; rather, I mean, in terms of my addition comapared to what it supplanted and supplemented). *** Marx notes (crucially, with the aforementioned mixture of the comedic, tragic, satiric, ironic, et cetera, etc.) and goes on to depict and provide an analysis for the unique economic legacy of the European Jews and relating that to what he felt was the distinction between political and human emancipation. He does mention the Sabbath-Worldly distinction, arguably, precisely in order to avoid certain mischaracterizations. And, after this, he never returns to the topic of 'Jews' ever again. Not to mention that no testimony from people who knew Marx (including those hostile to his views) reveal an antisemitic flavour to anything he said or has written on. Unlike other (more and less questionable) socialists, Marx, in fact, had no need to further revisit the Jewish Question, it (as a particularity) simply is not pertinent for his attempt to study capitalism as a mode of production, a process, etc. Had it not been for that specific discourse with Bauer, it is (counter-factual, yes, but nonetheless) reasonable to postulate that he would not have mentioned it at all. But I digress, as always. Thanks for bearing through my ramblings. El_C 01:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If I could, then, continue my polemic above, and relate it to myself. This is one of the issues I take with additional revisits of the Jewish Question (even if from a certain vantage point may seem politically-progressive). People should read a correct summary of Marx's TJQ, and move on; address it as such when needed, and move on to more universal realms (many things have happned since, yes, above all, the Holocaust; but that can still be explained within such a framework –and– appraoch). And those who are truly progressive (from my standpoint) know this and their actions reflect this understanding very clearly. *** It should not be the emphasis, then, with Jews being singled-out (yet again) to personify a system (and, of course, inherently rather arbitrarily and inaccurately: Marx, Einstein, and others would beg differ, I'm sure), as an excuse to avoid challenging that system; an imeasurably more dangarous aim that requiers much greater forms of sacrifice and struggle, and brings to the fore immense challenges. *** For the racists all of that is inconsequential, since they are so immoral, filled with hatered and devoid of reason. And no matter what you or myself might say on these issues (undoubtedly very different positions and things), they would see it all just the same as a plan for Jewish NWO, etc. They have no need to study history critically, though, no use to tread in waters deep; theirs is the drive for the instant gratification and base convictions of beasts. El_C 10:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hey Jay, this is to say thank you for supporting me in my adminship nomination, and for the kind comments and the moral support beforehand when I was hesitating. I really do appreciate it very much. Now, suddenly all these new buttons have appeared. I'm worried I click on something by accident and cause chaos. ;-) Best, SlimVirgin 04:14, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Can you please reconsider your desicion. The mans life mostly revolved around the organisation. His life basicaly is a very short summary of PKK Activity. His pre organisation life is not significant from any average person. These two articles are also subject to vandalism every here and there it would simplify my workload enforcing a non vandal world if these articles were merged. Thanks Cat chi? 17:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi, the discussion is avalible at: Talk:Abdullah Öcalan. Cat chi? 17:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Mostly, I hate the "and/or" construct. It's ugly and vague. Let's try to find (a) some real numbers, or (b) a better way to express it otherwise. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This IP address has been cited for vandalism in the Jew article for editing this in:
"Being the world's most hated andf gay assed religion is a tough job, but the Jews pull it off very well. They first earned their reputation being cheap in the year 112 b.c. Then killed Jesus Christ. Nowadays Jewish bastards are everywhere, mostly living in caves and sewer systems where they feed on crocodile heads and muskrat penises."
Could you initiate a vote to ban user?
Thanks,
Guy Montag 05:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hey wanted to let you know i'm up for Adminship if you want to go vote. Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alkivar ALKIVAR™ 05:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
no it wasn't for you, but you are free to add if you want. Please don't refer to any edit you disaprove of as Vandalism. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:23, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Greetings. :-) Thanks for taking the time to respond and for dropping me a note about the appropriate format requesting action. Jeeze. Rather involved -- isn't it? I'm dealing with some hardware/peripherals issues w/regard to my computer at the moment, that I have to take care of in order to meet a couple of deadlines. But I'll be on it as soon as I can find the time. Peace 2 u. And, again, thanks for taking a few moments to help make Wikipedia a better website, a better community. I despise this place sometimes, but it's a great idea with great potential -- and some truly marvelous articles. :-) deeceevoice 23:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg, I tried to move it, but bcz Ladino_language is already a redirect to Ladino, it won't let anyone but admins make the move. I'm changing the wikilinks that point to Ladino but should point to Ladino_language so that they point to the new page, and hopefully you can take care of moving Ladino to Ladino_language before someone overzealously undoes my changes as double-redirects. Tomer TALK 04:50, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
While we're working on this, can you move Ladinos to Ladino? I'm changing the relevant links that point to Ladinos so that they point to Ladino now, which will be the new disambig page. Tomer TALK 05:59, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC) PS: I tried to move it, but ran into the same colliding db entry problem as before. Tomer TALK 06:00, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Do you have a problem with me sir. I do not like your assumptions. Cat chi? 10:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg, don't mean to cross your authority, but HappyApple appears not to have violated 3RR, so I'm unblocking. Will protect the article for now. Fuzheado | Talk 01:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It seems to be working again. See here. SlimVirgin 17:06, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Jay, perhaps you can help me with this. I'd like to have a little superscripted (talk) sign after my signature but can't seem to get it to work. I've followed what seems to be the instructions but I can't be doing it right. I've also tried copying what other editors seem to have written but still nothing. In my preferences, in the section for nickname, I have just SlimVirgin (no brackets). What exactly do I need to add to get a superscripted (talk)? SlimVirgin 17:43, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, User:Yuber seems to think that the Golan Heights should not be part of Category:Geography of Israel, take a look at his edits...Thanks. IZAK 08:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg, since we have placed an RFC some time ago, do you not think it advisable to proceed with other Dispute resolution steps? This was we may arrive at an arbitration decision about the proper application of the Wikipedia Categorization guidelines. You know my position form our Talk discussions, and I would be a lot more comfortable leaving the Israel geography CAT in, or deleting both Israeli and Syrian CATs, if there were an official pronouncement that endorsed one of those positions, and clarified the disputed guideline. What is your own opinion? --AladdinSE 08:12, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits in this article! gidonb 20:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but as you say, tentatively. ;-) There have been so many sockpuppets there, I'm confused as to whether I can block them all indefinitely, or whether I should leave one as the main user account and just block it for 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:49, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
שלום ידיד! אני לא יכול לכתוב בניחותא על נצרים, המילה הזאת מעוללת כל כך באופן רע. אני מצטער מאד. אני חדש כאן, כפי שאתה כבר יודע. נא לעזור הידיד שלך. Halakhic-Jews-Only 00:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding. One of the links you recommended does not work. Since you are obviously quite experiences, are you able to rephrase it in a suitable way for wikipaedia?Halakhic-Jews-Only 00:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:עצה שנה את שם המשתמש שלך .אנא קבל זאת בהבנה ,בברכה El_C 13:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The issue seems to have resolved itself. --Viriditas | Talk 08:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Yikes! I have not studied Shahak like I have studied Shamir. I don't know enough about Shahak to participate on a meaningful level. I also suspect that I am ambivalent. I am actually very critical of Israel's policies, I just won't tolerate antisemitism in the discussion.--Cberlet 19:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hah! It looks like I should'nt have either, but it's too late now! Not only did I not know enough about him 'to participate in a meaningful level,' I have never heard of him, ever. He certainly, to my knowledge, isn't particularly notable in Israel. Nothing on .he, got 34 results in google.co.il. I'll have a look at and report back. El_C 22:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, it's difficult to find anything authoritative, or of value for that matter.
One Jewish right-wing Professor (a lecturer from the U.S.) who chooses to remain anonymous speaks very negatively on him as antisemitic, devoting an a paragraph to him in his article featured on Nativ ( שנה שבע עשרה • גיליון 3-4 (98-99) • סיון תשס"ד • יוני 2004 ) entitled "Leftist radicalism in the Hebrew Academy." He says that Sachak promotes a view of Judaism as irrational Goyim hatred, as admirers of Satan. I can translate more from that if you wish. [18]
On the other side, the Institute for Educational Research (in a piece on hate sites) devotes a single sentence to him, saying that he isn't a holocaust deniar nor antisemitic, but Holocaust deniars, antisemites, etc., misquote (ציטוטים מסולפים) him to their ends. [19]
Mentionned as an aside in Haaretz article, but nothing that seems particularly pertinent for our pruposes (I can translate the excerpt if you wish; it entails criticism from the right which puts him together with Barak, Leybovitz, etc.). [20]
On Hagada.org (meaning haGada a Ma'aravit, not 'legend'), one Sarban Giyus takes an opposite position (arguing that Shachak and others being unfairly vilified), but again, Shachak is only mentioend as an aside there as well. [21]
Makor Rishon, an online newspaper I've never heard of, mentions him but in the context of a quote from a Suadi journalist who calls Shachak a "moderate," so that isn't helpful either. [22]
And that's sums up google.co.il, the rest consists of a no text, three word forum message title mirrored several times, a few links that don't work even in the google cache but seem irrelavent anyway, etc. El_C 23:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, Jay, sorry I couldn't be of more help. Perhaps I was way off with my initial assessment, I don't really know. So I'm pleading ignorance at this point. If there's anything I can do, don't hesitate. El_C 02:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Regarding your comment about Kate's Tools on SV's talk page, yes, they changed servers, so the link changed as well. --Viriditas | Talk 22:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Looks good to me, though I'm sure our resident Naziphiles will find fault with it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Can you please move the Krymchaks article to Krymchak asap? Thanks. Tomer TALK 05:18, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try to get to redoing the many things linking to Krymchaks. I want to give the db time to update the "what links here" page first, since for some reason, it takes time for template links to articles quite a while to update (as we experienced when moving Ladino to Ladino language. Tomer TALK 06:29, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Please explain why you just reverted my additions to the article on anti-semitism? Sirkumsize 05:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to join in the action on Circumcision and Anti-semitism and the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Your attempt at reformatting Bene Israel is good at high resolutions, but it's really bad at 800x600, worse than what was there before. I tried a few things, couldn't find a happy solution; do you have any other ideas? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:33, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Just thought I'd say that I find some of your comments edging towards the abusive, and in any case decidedly unworthy of an admin. And can I further suggest toning down the conspiracy angle a bit until you can produce some actual evidence of bad faith editing by me or anyone else. --Gene_poole 02:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think someone's been screwing around. It no longer says "edit this page", it now says "vandalise this page" (it took me 3 tries to spell "vandalize" with an "s"...) What's going on? Tomer TALK 02:30, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea to have an article on the 13th tribe, as you suggest. I don't have time at the moment but in the next couple of weeks hopefully I can start one. --Briangotts 16:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg,
You deleted my addition which referred to Herzl's opinion on the Dreyfus Affair. I do not agree with your reason for doing so.
Though Zionism existed before the publication of Der Judenstaat, it is without doubt one of the most important documents in the history of the movement. Indeed, it can be argued that of this treatise was born the "modern" movement and thus the State of Israel. So why is the fact that its author's sudden volte-face in support for Zionism may have been based in substantial part on an arrogance of his own holding (and a non-acceptance that a Jew in a position of trust could possibly commit any crime, a virtue - it is implied in his words - he considers "specifically Jewish") not appropriate here?
I believe your opinion that this is peripheral underestimates the importance of Herzl in modern Zionism. I attempted to demonstrate that his own thinking on the subject may have been flawed and based in some prejudice of his own. Is this not relevant to the subject under which it was added?
Regards,
Jay K.
Is it possible to effectively block a range of IP addresses ? For several days we're struggling with an anonymous vandal who deletes other ppl's contents, refuses any discussion and attempts to offend other wikipedians. See Vilnius or Lithuania. He uses a dynamic IP allocation from 85.206.192.*, 85.206.193.*, 85.206.194.*, 85.206.195.* ranges. From what I've seen none of these addresses have been used for other purpose than this vandalism, so blocking them would do more good than harm. Obviously we could use our time in a more productive manner than reverting his changes. Any advice ? Lysy 08:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
IP Address 85.224.177.65 has been engaged in an edit war with most members in the Ustase page, editiing out information without discussion. He has been warned various times that he is violation of the rules, and he is at least in violation of the three revert rule. Maybe he is a clueless newbie but could you please check out the article, and if see if there has been a violation?
Thanks,
Guy Montag 20:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ip Address 80.58.14.42 is a vandal. A rote check in history will note his vandalism of the Jew article and other article. He is probably a neo nazi from stormfront.
Please check it out.
Guy Montag 06:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
User:STP has in fact been cited for vandalism by User:ElTyrant, see Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#Current alerts#April 4 [23] and is suspected by both User:SlimVirgin and User:Jayjg of being a sock puppet of banned User:Alberuni see User talk:STP [24] and Mossad "Project"? No, it was Mossad terrorism [25]. UserSTP is also guilty of using anti-Semitic slurs, such as: "traitor Jews can't be trusted" [26] ; "Judaism is a cult but Jewish cultists, of course, deny it" and added the blood libel: ":Ethnocentric Jews killed Jesus 2000 years ago and in the past century they have killed thousands of Palestinians, Lebanese, Jordanians and other innocent victims in their quest to maintain their racist state." [27], and again repeated it "The Jews killed Jesus, among many others" [28] ! So who is this guy to "complain" when he should be booted off Wikipedia ASAP. IZAK 12:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Have a look at the following VFD: [29] TDC 13:53, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't necessarily saying that the Nation of Islam's criticisms' of Israel were mistaken as anti-Semitism specifically, I meant something more like "often, criticisms of the government of Israel are portrayed as anti-Semitism by supporters of the government of Israel". Here are some citations [30] [31] [32] [33] there are plenty more. zen master T 20:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is not original research to state anywhere in a relevant article: "Generally speaking, criticism of the government of Israel is often portrayed by supporters of the government of Israel to be anti-Semitism". Please justify your statement logically, how exactly is a general, factual, neutrally presented, citable sentence original research?? I already provided you with citations for such a general statement, it would be entirely justified to put that statement and those citations in most every anti-Semitic article (anywhere it is relevant and balances things). Your POV is so ingrained you fail to realize you are oozing it. zen master T 02:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
From what I read, it seems to be a crude and unencyclopedic approach to pov balance, an approach which strikes me as intellectually careless and lazy. El_C 03:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hey, have you glanced yet at the contributions made by our favourite and ever-so-talkative, anti-Vilna anonymous editor? El_C 04:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
shipe. lemme try the unicode template and see whether that works. what version of IE are you using? Tomer TALK 05:02, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, please see and add your comments if you like at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:IZAK [35] regarding my above alert to you about User:STP. Thank you. IZAK 05:21, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A new article, Nahum Goldmann, has been created as a translation from the German Wikipedia article. I've copy-edited it (the translation was a bit messy in places), but I'm unsure about standard English forms of some of the terms, especially organisations. Could you take a look at it? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am having some problems with a poster in the Hebron article. AladdinSE keeps reverting to a POV version of the article where the host image of the Cave of the Patriarchs is entititled "Abrahimi Mosque." I for one believe that because it was the Cave of the Patriarchs before Muslims conquered it in 638, it should be continued to be called Cave of the Patriarchs with the mention that a mosque now exists there after the Muslim conquest.
There is also a mention of "all settlements by jews in the occupied territories are considered illegal by the UN", which is a blatantly false claim. Anyways, I need some help before it turns into a full fledged revert war because he reverts without explanation.
Thanks in advance,
19:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's the same picture its just that the name entitled Abrahimi Mosque even though its the cave. Also, I need a third opinion on the near revert war I am having with Aladdin. I will stop edits, for now until I get a third opinion on my edits, and a compromise... preferebly from you.
Hoping for a quick solution,
Guy Montag 20:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I got a strange diatribe on my user discussion page from "Bill Cannon". It was unusually vitriolic for a new users with virtually no other edits to his name. I've elected to hash it out on the race/discussion page since my reverting a circularly self-destructive edit was the cause of the diatribe. Just curious as to who "Bill Cannon" is. P0M 20:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for getting involved; it looks much more accurate now (though, of course, the whole problem was that I couldn't be sure what was accurate and what wasn't...). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers (well, my mop and bucket) for good not evil. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If readers want to look up the history of Arab-Israeli wars they should be able to look up 1948 war, 1956 war, 1967 war, 1973 war in an index etc. They shouldn't have to know Yom Kippur War, Six Day War, Suez War by their nicknames. How will they know the order of the wars if they are unfamiliar? Try to use a little logic in this encyclopedia instead of familiar provincialisms. --Dogtag 16:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You wrote to me that "And finally, "Suez War" gets 11,300 Google hits vs 282 for "1956 Arab-Israel war" but you conveniently neglected to point out that "1956 war" gets 15,200 Google hits. If a reader looks at the category "Arab-Israeli wars", how does he know what the order of these wars is? Furthermore, "Yom Kippur War" is the Israeli name for the war. You can be sure that the Arabs don't call it that. Is this an Israeli encyclopedia? The title of the article should be neutral, not reflecting one side or the other. The year of the war is a good way to do that rather than adopting the Israeli name for the war. --Dogtag 16:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You wrote to me that "The problem with categories is that the only allow alphabetical listing; nothing can be done about that." But that isn't a problem. Look at category arab-israeli wars. There are articles under "1" for 1948 war. If all the wars were titled by year these would be in the correct order instead of named with nicknames that have no logical order. You also wrote to me "As for "Yom Kippur war", that is the English name for the war, not the Israeli name. Israelis give it a Hebrew name." That is a false argument. The Israelis call the 1948 war "the war of independence" even though they ALSO have a Hebrew name for the war. Wikipedia does not call it the war of independence because that is the Israeli perspective name for it. Wikipedia names it the 1948 war becuase that is more neutral. Similarly, the Yom Kippur War is the Israeli perspective name - even though it is in English. The Arab perspective name is Octoiber war or Ramadan War. The article about the 1973 war should be named the 1973 Arab-Israeli war with redirects from other names for the sake of neutrality, unless this encyclopedia is supposed to reflect an Israeli perspective. --Dogtag 17:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You wrote to me "Regarding categories, the purpose of categories is not to provided chronological summaries of topics, so your complaint that they do not do so is moot." It might not be the purpose of categories but it will add to the educational value of the description of Arab-Israeli wars if the chronological order of those wars is clear to novice readers.
You also wrote to me, "As well, as I've explained before, Wikipedia policy says that articles should use common names. In English, the common name is the "Yom Kippur war"; that gets 106,000 Google hits, vs. 9,440 for "1973 Arab-Israeli war". Please stop trying to inject politics into a matter of common English usage and Wikipedia policy". It is not injecting politics to struive for neutrality. on the contrary, your stubborn insistence on using the Israeli name for the wars is an example of injecting politics. Encarta even makes clear "Because the conflict began on the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, and took place during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, the war is called the Yom Kippur War by Israelis, and the Ramadan War, or the October War, by Arabs." [36]. It is an Israeli perspective for Wikipedia to title this article "Yom Kippur War" just as it would be an Arab perspective to name it "Ramadan War". The neutral perspective is "1973 Arab-Israeli War". The last formulation also has the advantage of logical, chronological and neutral consistency with naming the wars after the years of the wars 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 Arab-Israeli war, etc. Instead of naming the wars the way Israelis or Arabs do. The number of Google hits for Yom Kippur war is not relevant. (Many of those hits are from Jewish history and Israeli websites, by the way). You ignore the number of Google hits when you want to ignore the fact that "1956 war" has more Google hits than "Suez Crisis". So that is another false argument. Please stop promoting pro-Israeli bias into Wikipedia article names and accept a neutral encylcopedia that serves all English speakers, not just Israelis and Israeli sympathizers. --Dogtag 20:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=7608 Making any statement like this is always branded as Anti-Semitism whil at best it is Anti-ZIonist (or simply the truth !). Now PLEASE change this Anti-Semitism crap about Islam !