User talk:Jayjg/Archive 3

Poll

Please review the poll proposal on Pursuit of Nazi collaborators and discuss accordingly on the talk page. There is no voting as of yet. --Viriditas 20:22, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I have requested Arbitration, too. HistoryBuffEr 04:48, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

Excellent; I welcome it. Jayjg 16:06, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Operation Defensive Shield

trying to get the NPOV marker removed by requesting specific examples of NPOV material. No presented by Alberuni. Keep an eye out there please. Lance6Wins 17:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Israel Shahak

Aloha, Jayjg. I think there may be a slight, unintended bias in the passage regarding Shahak and Radio Islam. If you read it again, it almost appears to be a form of guilt by association, even though the facts you present are substantiated. A simple rewrite will rectify the problem. and present (as well as preserve) the content in a more neutral light. Although it's totally up to you (I believe you are the author, although I could be wrong), there are a number of ways of going about this. I think instead of stating an association between Shahak and the hate groups -- which most certainly exists -- it might be fair to simply move the section to a Criticism section, and simply state the names of the claimants and their allegations in a separate sentence. It's one of those, it's not what you say, it's how you say it problems. I'll make some changes, and if you don't like them, please modify my work. Thanks. --Viriditas 09:43, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arafat

Knock it off with the reverts, JG. Thanks. -SV 19:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, somebody had to knock it off, and Im glad its protected now. I suggest doing the Yasser Arafat/Draft thing, and choosing two moderate editors (people who refrain from reverts) to reconstruct the article. Thanks. -SV 19:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Email

Email sent. --Viriditas 00:23, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vote

Please vote on the title for Pursuit of Nazi collaborators. You can vote here. --Viriditas 02:47, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sabra and Shatila Massacre

I attempted to revert HistoryBuffEr's changes to Sabra and Shatila Massacre, but having too many windows open, I mistakenly copied your user page instead. I immediately fixed it, but I'm sorry about that. --Viriditas 03:36, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Munich Massacre

Please add Munich Massacre to your list. Also see the Talk page to see a brief summary of HistoryBuffEr's distortions. --Viriditas 07:47, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have attempted a compromise version of Munich Massacre that incorporates the best parts of both versions. Improvements are welcome, but I would like to humbly ask that you not do a blanket revert, as you would be reverting good edits as well as bad. Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 22:21, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I'm honored you'd ask. I can try. (At best, it might help, and at worst, it'll at least provide evidence for an RFC or arbitration request.) But I reserve the right to give up and walk away if I feel myself losing my cool. What articles did you have in mind? (Oh please, Hashem, don't let him say anti-Semitism. . .) – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 23:51, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Al Aqsa Intifada

Please keep an eye of this page. Alberuni deleted some key facts (about A-Doura and Jenin, for example) and nobody noticed. I reverted it to the previous version now and it should be O.K. Anyway, I be watching the page. MathKnight 19:35, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, you again missed Alberuni POV bias and propoganda of deleting true facts. I instered the changes again (8:09, 11 Nov 2004). Next time, before you response on Alberuni's edit, please check history to see if he did revert my version. Alberuni's sabotage of the article are as follows:

• Denying the lynch im Ramallah and instead claiming the PA killed two Israeli assissns (and opposing to the Talk section, that nobody supported his Palestinian melicious lie).
• Denying the Palestinian accusation on massacre in Jenin while claiming that there was a massacre - against all reported of UN, HRW and others.
• The killing of Abbedullah Qawasameh (2003) - describing the YAMAM as an assissination squad although they came to arrest him.
• Operation Days of Penitence: constantly removing the fact the most casualties were militants.
• Biasing "tactics" of Israel.

Please keep and eye if he does a drastic change, revert to my version. MathKnight 08:18, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

CfD: Category:Advocacy

Please vote on Category:Advocacy. HistoryBuffEr created this category as a duplicate of Category:Activism, and fabricated a negative definition associating Advocacy with propaganda -- a definition that cannot be found in any dictionary. Then, he replaced Category:Activism with his new Category:Advocacy on Hasbara and Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Advocacy groups are already categorized under Activism so HistoryBuffEr's new category is essentially a duplicate, and contains a false definition. --Viriditas 10:05, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you on that one

I've read your argument with some guy at the Yasser Arafat's page, and I must say I do agree with you. Also, I feel happy that there's people who fight against the POV which are pretty common to occur in some articles.

Yasser Arafat

User:HistoryBuffEr is vandalizing Yasser Arafat, see Talk:Yasser_Arafat#HistoryBuffEr_warnings. You might want to put an eye. MathKnight 21:47, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

help?

I have made my own proposal for the "new messiah" section, and would appreciate your comments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus#New_Messiah_paragraph -- thanksSlrubenstein

I have responded to your critiques. Please continue to contribute on this article! Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus - Amgine 05:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) I have responded to your further critiques. Thanks again for your input! - Amgine 07:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to mention... Aaron and Moses were Levites, and from my sources both Kohen and Levi are roles or positions in a Judaic reading of the Torah (and, of course, Levi was also a son of Jacob and founder of the tribe of Levi). The Kohen must be a descendent of Aaron, but the Levi may be any Levite.

On a related note, there were kings of the Jews prior to David, in addition to the Hasmoneans, who were not descended from David. According to the jewish culture of the time of the Hasmoneans, they were properly annointed Messiah Kings, though they may have been less respected due to their lack of lineage through David. Just thought you might want to know these bits of trivia vís-a-vís the article discussion. - Amgine 07:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Following the guidelines of the Wikipedia dispute resolution, I am asking if you would please remove your comments which are primarily challenges to me personally from the Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus discussion as it would be inappropriate for me to address them while Slrubenstein, Cheesedreams, and myself are in mediation. I will be happy to address each of them here on your talk page, or in the article talk page after the mediation process is completed. Thanks! - Amgine 03:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I understand and respect you philosophy regarding removing comments from talk: pages. However, since I feel it could unnecessarily risk the mediation Slrubenstein has requested and since I feel it could unnecessarily risk the potential compromise which is being developed regarding the locked article I am constrained from responding to the content of your responses. That you have now been informed of this, I would consider it baiting and uncivil of you to add personal challenges in that talk page. - Amgine 17:09, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Araft Blanket Reverts

Your Nov 13:16-17 blanket revert of major portions of this article [1] have overwritten my changes to the illness and death section. That is the 2nd time my changes have been overwritten, previously was by HistoryBuffEr. Other changes by other contributors have presumably also been overwritten. If you want to wage war about the content of the page, please avail of the existing Wikipedia dispute resolution mechanisms, including locking the page. Due to your revert, the rest of us are currently wasting our time making changes.

If you are making your changes in the interests of factual accuracy, you will appreciate my attempt to record that Arafat's illness was first reported on Oct 25 and not Oct 28, as specified in the version you inserted.

If you feel the need to do a wholesale revert in the article again, please include my version of the Illness and Death section.

I have posted the same message to HistoryBuffEr - Rye1967 23:58, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Arafat

HistoryBuffEr has reverted Yasser Arafat four times in 24 hours:

1. 23:18, 12 Nov 2004 - Revert of 24.81.198.191
2. 09:33, 13 Nov 2004 - Revert of 195.7.55.146
3. 18:17, 13 Nov 2004 - Revert of 218.208.238.131
4. 19:24, 13 Nov 2004 - Revert of Viriditas

--Viriditas 05:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who are you?

Ok, just to clarify, I'm not you and you're not me and Xed's not me and you're not Xed and I'm not Xed and Xed's not me and Xed's not you. Are we agreed? Neutralisation 06:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What? --NoPetrol 09:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for protecting the Mordechai Vanunu article from Xed's edit warring. I don't know why he wouldn't discuss it but hopefully he will now. Thanks. Deuxmachina 14:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will hang in there, and will definitely take up your suggestion about working through the individual changes with Xed. He doesn't seem keen to talk but might come around. Deuxmachina 14:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

sorry if I f*cked up there. I found the page from VIP, had a brief look at diff and decided that obviously the "vandal" slipped in an edit just before your protection. I know that pov-pushers are not considered vandals, and if I violated policy by this, feel free to revert me. dab 16:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am a very fresh admin, and I do have an interest to remain very clean. But my edit was in best faith. If it is indeed violating policy, it can be reverted by one mouseclick by another administrator, and I will gladly be told that I made a mistake. Maybe we should put the case before a third, uninvolved admin and let him judge. Anyway, the protection is there not to remain but to encourage the parties to find a compromise. I hope that they will do this and that we can remove the protection soon. I understand that protection should happen 'blindly', but since the final edit contained severe pov wording that would have been reverted anyway, and since I never participated in any Israeli topic before, I do believe it is obvious that my reversion was in good faith, while I admit that it may have been wiser to leave the case to more experienced hands. dab 19:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Evidence of NPOV editing

Would you please place evidence under this heading on the evidence pages of your arbitration case which show you have made edits to Jewish, Zionist and Palestinian related topics which demonstrate NPOV editing.

If I understand the case, one of the accusations is that you engage regularly in POV editing. I will put provisional findings of fact in the proposed decision which document POV editing, but wish to offer you an opportunity to demonstrate that your editing is more balanced than it appears in the complaint. Fred Bauder 17:49, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

I note you offer edits removing this material from the article, Anti-Zionism, [2] as a NPOV edit. Could you explain to me how this is NPOV? What was wrong with the information? Fred Bauder 02:44, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your vote on my RFA. Joyous 00:48, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Aberuni

Yes, when I said "seems to value" I mean more precisely "claims to value." At this point, being an optimistic virgin to Israel/Palestine edit wars, I take him at face value. Cool Hand Luke 02:27, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards

I have drafted a proposal for a new voluntary association on Wikipedia (joining groups like the Wikipedia:The Business and Economics Forum and the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club) to promote discussion of a sort of system of expert review on Wiki. Please take a look and add your ideas. 172 02:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Wonderful idea! I have joined. I will let some others know. Thank you. IZAK 03:27, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism - NPOV edit

Hi Fred, did my explanation clarify why I thought that was an example of a NPOV edit? Also, in the initial Arbitration request a couple of Arbitrators mentioned "injunctions". Could you tell me what those are and how they work? If a Talk: page is an inappropriate place for that, please feel free to e-mail me. Thanks. Jayjg 15:50, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am probably done for the day as far as doing any serious work so I will take a look at that tomorrow. An injunction, as we are using it, is temporary orders meant to deal with troublesome situations, for example in the case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gzornenplatz,_Kevin_Baas,_Shorne,_VeryVerily#Temporary_injunction where Shorne and VeryVerily regularly engage in extensive revert wars. You would ask for them when there is some intolerable situation that needs to be dealt with immediately pending a decision. The closest analogy at law would be a temporary restraining order. However, as I don't know the exact context in which "injunction" was used they may mean something more. But generally we have not used that word in the legal sense, for example, we forbad (enjoined) Irismeister from editing Iridology, but never used that word. Fred Bauder 16:40, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Now I have looked (in the morning, when I can think) at your explanation, I see that it is indeed an example of NPOV editing, although I think you might have gone a bit far by deleting it completely rather than attributing to a specific conference. However the article cited does confuse the report of that particular conference with whatever the official position of the Church might be. So if the link to the article is retained the POV jump to conclusions remains. Anyway, this is the sort of edit I'm looking for where instead of standing by while the POV warriors on "your side" go overboard, you provide necessary correction. Fred Bauder 12:34, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Revert war on Arab-Israeli conflict

Please stop this. I've placed a message on Alberuni's talk page also. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:27, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If the comment is a "conspiracy theory" (not scare quote, just quoting yourself) from Alberuni then I see you may feel this is original research. If this is so, I haven't seen you say this on the talk page (though I might be being unobservant). If Alberuni can find external sources for his theory, then he may be able to add something, albeit in a modified form. However, please try to remember I still know little about the whole issue. Perhaps I'm lazy, but maybe an outside reviewer might help here. Perhaps you could state your case to me again, keeping in mind I know nothing of this issue? Maybe we can come to some sort of compromise. At the very least we can try. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you might be interested in my comments on Alberuni's talk page (Ta bu shi da yu 22:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)):

OK, I've carefully read what you wrote, and I find it extremely interesting. Ironically, I'm somewhat sympathetic to your views. I sometimes wonder why the U.S. let's Israel get away with some of the things it gets away with... that said I wonder when this conflict will cease (I don't think it will in my lifetime) as I beleive both sides are equally to blame! You'll have to note I come from a Christian background, so I'm declaring my potential biases right here so you'll understand where I'm coming from.

I think, however, that if you want to keep the text for the U.S. 9/11 attacks, you're going to have to do more to convince people (including myself). Firstly, I agree with Jayjg's statement that "attacks on the U.S. are not attacks on Israel, nor part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, since Israel is not a proxy for the U.S., nor is the U.S. a "Zionist Occupied Government" proxy of Israel"". Whether the Sept. 11 attacks were directed against the U.S. or against Israel is a matter for debate. Secondly, I beleive you must have gotten your information from somewhere. You seem pretty intelligent, so I'm guessing you are well read up on this subject (better read than me anyway, I'll bet). Perhaps if you could point us to some external sources, we would be able to include your information. Heck, we could put it into another section and give a brief description of the views of others. That way it won't be original research, it will be compromising yet not in a way that you have concede anything on your information.

Anyway, I'm trying to come to a solution here. reverting certainly isn't going to work, and will only lead to rancour and 1) the page being blocked, or 2) either you, Jayjg (or both of you!) getting blocked for editing for a while! I don't want to see these things happen as I don't feel it's terribly productive or nice. Anyway, let me know your thoughts. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Matrilineality

I have revised this somewhat tendentious piece of writing. Matrilineality is now reasonably POV-free. Any more worries? JFW | T@lk 18:16, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Archiving

Jayjg, I noticed you archived Yasser Arafat, and you do it for your talk page. How do you archive in Wiki? thanks. Terrapin 21:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edit wars

I'll have a look at those pages. But it looks like a pretty tangled edit history; I don't promise that I'll be able to make sense of it... - Mustafaa 23:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm delighted, actually. You are to be commended for your dedication to these articles. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 00:39, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, you are assisting SlimVirgin in his propaganda campaign against the Schiller Institute by intervening to protect his version of the page. You should leave the administration to someone who is neutral. --Caroline 14:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

10 commandments

I noticed that you removed a claim by an anon as to their being more than 10 commandments. There are 19. If you can't work out why, please read Exodus 34:11-28 CheeseDreams 00:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How does this prove that there were more than "10 commandments"? The text records God as saying " I will inscribe upon the tablets the words that were on the first tablets". In contrast, he tells Moses to "Inscribe these words for yourself, for according to these words I have formed a covenant with you and with Israel". "These words", being the commands he had just been given.--Josiah 00:08, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The commands he had just been given are Exodus 34:11-27; the OTHER 10 commandments.

If you combine all 3 lists, and count the distinct commands, the total comes to 19. CheeseDreams 00:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, the combined list from Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy comes to a total of 11. CheeseDreams 00:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you include all the commandments and rules in the Torah, aren't there more than 600 commandments or something? Kingal86 23:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Al Aqsa Intifada

Hi, please keep an eye of Al Aqsa Intifada, now HistoryBuffEr "twin", User:Alberuni keep inserting missinformation to the page. MathKnight 19:25, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You should see Alberuni's latest additions to the Talk:Al-Aqsa Intifada. Unlike HistoryBuff, he - at least - is willing to discuss his edits, I'll grant him that. But the swearing and flamming attacks by him have gone too far, don't you think? MathKnight 21:20, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Help me mommy!" --Alberuni 21:26, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up. I didn't know what I was getting in to. :P --Golbez 22:31, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Alleged "misunderstanding" OF Geneva Conv. from "Popular Resistance Committees" tak

What misunderstanding of the Geneva Conventions? Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 states, "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."-Kingal86 23:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Answered on Talk: page. Jayjg 23:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another page under attack

Jayjg, could you add the Death of Jeremiah Duggan to your list of pages under attack, in this case by followers of Lyndon LaRouche? It is currently protected. Many thanks, Slim 23:51, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Jayjg. Slim 00:06, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Cultural and Historical Context of Jesus

The page is now unprotected. Cultural and historical background of Jesus I added a good deal of information; CheeseDreams just reverted it. Please compare my version to the previous one (FT2) and comment. Thanks Slrubenstein

Jenin Jenin

You can the article of Jenin to your list of "article under attacks" as well. User:Alberuni deleted some parts of the article (mock funeral, Pals accuse of massacre) and added a Palestinian report submitted to the UN as a "finding by UN commission" to claim that a massacre did occure. Please keep an eye, I've added it to my watchlist. MathKnight 19:15, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This online war

Jay, I had a look at Yasser Arafat, but it's like looking at two completely different articles. I'm sorry to say this, but this Israel/Palestine stuff is not my main focus. I tried turning to it for a few weeks to see if I could help out, but this is beyond me. Again, my best suggestion to either side in a dispute like this is that instead of reverting the other side wholesale, you start from their version and go piece by piece. Frankly, with a bunch of serious POV warriors on both sides, I don't hold out much hope even for that. I'm not saying I won't eventually try to focus here for a while again, but frankly the 2 weeks I spent with this as my primary focus were the worst 2 weeks I spent working on Wikipedia, worse by far than dealing with some almost comparably contentious issues in the history of Romania or of the Basques. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:47, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

It's not like I'm doing nothing, but there is almost no one willing to take on this sort of issues with reference to Chile, or Romania, or the Basques, so that's been my main focus. Right now on Romania we are dealing with lots of what seem to me to be conspiracy theories about '89, and I'm having a hard time trying to evaluate Romanian-language sources. It's very frustrating, because unlike Spanish, I'm not even close to fluent. I suspect that in the long run this forum for encyclopedic standards may help solve some of this, so I'm trying to give that some time. And, hey, guess what? I also try to put in at least some time on writing and translating articles, the main reason I got involved with this in the first place. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:00, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Teasing

In an edit summary, you wrote:

... that's 4 reverts here; will you go for 5, Alberuni?

I regard this as a taunt, which is a form of teasing. If I were interested in "building a case", I would count this against you. More importantly, if YOU are trying to build a case, then it behooves you to re-read Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks and adhere to it.

If another user makes more than 3 identical reverts, there are better ways of dealing with this than to taunt them publicly. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 16:29, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Dr. Zen

All of my opinion of Dr. Zen is based on his votes on Votes for deletion, where he seems to vote delete solely to vote delete. RickK 05:41, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Email

I got your email, thanks. See [[3]]. I blocked all three users for one week. I think that's what the email you sent was regarding. Thanks and happy Thanksgiving, [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 06:11, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism

Jay, I was the one who removed the headers in the external links section, but it was in error. I was trying to correct some of the links, which appeared to have the final ] missing. When I previewed the edit, the list of links had turned into one long sentence, so I fixed it but forgot to replace the headers. Sorry! I should probably leave this article well alone actually, as I don't know the editing history and what's been agreed. Slim 11:27, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Cultural and historical background of Jesus - Compromise discussion

Jayjg;

Slrubenstein has said he will not further discuss compromise unless others are involved. Would you care to read or comment on Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus#Compromise discussion? - Amgine 20:27, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User page

I hope you don't mind, but I updated the Rachel Corrie listing to unprotected on your user page. --Viriditas 23:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Jayjg 00:46, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ashkenazi

Could you have a look at my recent comment on Talk:Ashkenazi? I believe that recent edits to the article are, to put it politely, bad. I have added a disputed tag. I would like to make sure that at least a couple of other people agree with me before I revert. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:23, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Black September

As I recall, the last time I edited that page, my material was called a "roach infestation."  :-) Slim 15:50, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Bernard Williams

Thanks for the advice, Jay. When you say a brief intro, do you mean, say, a paragraph summarizing what the rest of the article's going to say, and then after that start the biographical information? Slim 23:18, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Jay, I have re-written the lead for Bernard Williams. If you have any thoughts on the new version, please let me know (but don't worry if you don't have time/inclination). Slim 05:53, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Voted twice?

Well, I voted for the 3RR rule, but also voted to have some of my concerns addressed. Where is Anthony claiming I voted twice and I'll respond accordingly. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Same here, except I voted against. I take it he views the "would like concerns addressed" as a vote? That's seems an odd interpretation to me. I left a message on Talk about it.[4]

RfC

Hello. HistoryBuffEr has filed an RfC against me. I thought I'd let you know, in case you have any interest in commenting. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 19:22, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Williams

Thank you, Jay!

Request for Arbitration

I have just noted, by chance, that CheeseDreams has brought a case against you, me and others for Arbitration. Given that I only found out by chance rather than notification, I thought I would let you know in case you would like to comment on WP:RFAR. jguk 22:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your note at RfAr and came here to let you know, but jguk's beaten me. Based on my conversations with CD, it's a case filed by him/her against all the users named in that list. But I admit it's presented in a disorienting fashion, at least for me, and I am a little confused about who is making what comments. Jwrosenzweig 23:01, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the RfAr is ath to worry about. Since you seem to be involved, would you be interested in signing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CheeseDreams#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute? --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 23:12, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

it is a matter of perspective.

First, thanks for the message on my page. I appreciate it, and mean no disrespect at all. You suggest I misunderstand. Well, that may be the case. However, I prefer to see it not as me doing the misunderstanding, but someone else doing the misleading. When things are cleared up ON the RFA page, I am sure my misunderstanding will clear up as well. Slrubenstein

HistoryBuffEr is violating arbitration procedures

See my comments on Fred Bauder's talk page. This is very serious, as we will now have to analyze every single edit in the arbitration history page. --Viriditas 08:58, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GeneralPatton

Hi, on my Requests for adminship, User:Fastfission has suggested that I’m sympathetic to Holocaust deniers, since you know my work on the David Irving article maybe you could comment on that, what I consider a tasteless assertion. GeneralPatton 06:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blocking of HistoryBuffEr

Greetings. HistoryBuffEr has violated the 3RR (again), and I have just blocked him. I left a detailed note on his talk page here explaining my action.

The last time I blocked him, he was very upset. I was mistaken in my time frame in that instance, thinking he had reverted four times in 24 hours when he had only reverted four times in 26 hours, and I had to back down and apologize. Still, he launched an invalid RfC against me, which was, in my opinion, an attempt to punish me. He then disendorsed many of the Arbitor candidates who endorsed my summary on the RfC, which seemed to me as a way of punishing them as well.

I am quite sure the blocking this time was appropriate – I dotted all my i's and crossed all my t's. But I suspect he will be no less upset. I'm asking you to keep an eye on the situation. If he acts in a vindictive way, I ask that you support me, if you feel this is deserved. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 16:56, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Deletion of Warsaw Ghetto link from Israeli West Bank Barrier

Hello Jayjg. I want to thank you for a little moral lesson. Innocently enough (at the time), I placed a link to "Warsaw Ghetto" on the IWBB page, thinking it might have some relevance. I intended to add The "Great Wall of China", "Berlin Wall", etc. Well, soon enough I discovered that you had deleted it as "spurious and inflammatory". Well, that just made me mad. How could a mere link be inflammatory? But rather than go back and add the link again, I sat down and had a long think, and re-read a lot of the talk page and the article itself. As I thought about it I had to wonder why I chose "Warsaw Ghetto" as the first link to place. To my regret, I have realized that I was attempting to inject my own feelings on the subject, or at least suggest an ironic twist, and for that I am very sorry. With all the infighting going on with this subject, I realize it IS inflammatory, and what the hell was I up to anyway? I was dismayed to read all the discussion of "wall" versus "barrier" which seemed so petty to me, but I have begun to realize just how valuable the talk can be, and yes, there does need to be a consensus which is truly NPOV. In any case, I appreciate your efforts, and I especially thank you for a personal re-alignment of what Wikipedia is attempting to achieve. Thank you. jimaginator

Request for assistance

Hello again. HistoryBuffer is under a 24 hour block for violating the 3RR. He has continued to edit while not logged on, signing his name to these edits.[5]

According to User:UninvitedCompany: "The usual procedure regarding blocks in general in the past, has been that evading the block results in: the time period for the block beginning anew, any contributions made in evasion of the block being reverted, blocking any IPs used to evade the block, blocking any new identities used to evade the block."

HistoryBuffEr has now filed a Request for Arbitration against me, while still under this block. I feel it would be inappropriate of me to roll back this change, since it involves me, but I would appreciate it if another sysop would do this for me.

Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 21:27, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Update: Someone else already did this. Thanks anyway! – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 21:44, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr

I absolutely agree that what he's done is unwarranted, however let me investigate further. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:15, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to HistoryBuffEr you didn't agree with the block we placed on him. See my talk page for details. Is this correct? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:39, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A request of sorts

Look, I know we've had a lot of issue between us in the past, and I suppose you probably think I'm some kind of asshole, but I assure you I only acted the way I did because I genuinely believe you are a POV warrior. Maybe you don't even realise it, I don't know. Anyhow, my accusations about you being a rogue admin were probably out of line, because I only really noticed you do anything improprietous once or twice, and that was right after you became and admin. What I guess I'm try to say is... why don't we bury the hatchet, be civil to each other? I'm not saying I'm not going to revert you if I think you're POV-warring; I'm just saying that I don't hate you, I don't have a "vendetta" against you, and I don't think we should be "enemies". What do you think? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 05:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Blankfaze. I'm all for burying hatchets, but based on your response on your Talk: page, I'm a bit mystified. If you can't guarantee you're going to stop calling me a POV warrior, and getting in various digs on un-related pages, then how exactly will your behaviour differ? And what specific change would you like to see in my behaviour to indicate that the hatchet is buried? I don't hate you, and I certainly intend to be civil to you, if that's what you're looking for. Jayjg 17:21, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• No, no... I didn't say I wouldn't stop calling you a POV warrior, etc. etc. — I said that I would make an effort to. I can't guarantee it solely because POV-warring pisses me off, and I might say something I'd regret later. What I'm saying is that I would like the two of us to make the effort to be civil to one another. I'm going to make an effort to assume good faith. Also, I no longer regard you as a rogue admin. As far as you behaviour is concerned, all I really wanted was to convey that I do not have a vendetta against you, as you seem to think. Additionally, I'd like you to stop POV-warring, but I'm not asking you to. You do make enough good contributions that I can't consider you a bad user. Also, if this ArbCom proposed decision goes through, who knows, it might not be a problem anymore, or at least for a while. Perhaps you could try to be more openminded about POVs contrary to pro-Israel ones, and a neutral POV? Anyhow, to sum up — I'm going to try not to treat you as a bad guy, and to assume your actions are in good faith, and to be civil to you. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 05:05, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A plea and a warning

Jayjg, what I'm about to say may come out the wrong way. I'm sorry if it gets that way under the medium of text on a webpage — I hope you don't take this badly. OK, here goes: I understand that you feel very intensely about some articles. I can understand that. I feel quite intense about one of my favourite pages, and that's not even the most controversial one in the world (it's exploding whale by the way).

What I am asking, however, or perhaps warning about, is that you be very careful with reverting in future. Please, take HistoryBuffEr's 24 hour block as a warning! We will not put up with edit wars. I'm sure you agree that edit wars can be very bad. In HistoryBuffEr's case, I noticed that he was not taking his edits to the talk page, and I can understand why you and others kept reverting him. However, I cannot condone these reverts. I realise that this may not seem fair, but there are other ways to resolve edit disputes. In the case of editors who refuse to discuss changes, this can be tricky. I would suggest, however, that instead of reverting you place the page on WP:PROT and get an admin to lock it. This will (hopefully) force the other editor to discuss their changes while the page is locked. I also do think it's a good idea to alert an admin about the problem (I wouldn't take any notice of the evidence given about you by HistoryBuffEr that you do this, I don't personally have a problem with it!)

Please, as your wikifriend and as an administrator I implore you to think carefully before reverting! I would absolutely, positively hate to block you for 24 hours!!!! I didn't enjoy reblocking HistoryBuffEr the second time when he was unblocked. I would prefer to have gotten him to talk about his changes on the talk pages. He wouldn't do this, and he violated the 3RR and so got blocked. I don't want to see this happen to you. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dear Ta bu shi da yu, Excuse me for mixing in here. Even though I don't necessarily agree with Jayjg (who really belongs here) in every single detail about views and,very (!!!!!) occasionally, methods, I have really not seen anything that can seem to justify your "warning"...! I realise that he has occasionally made relatively frequent reverts, but seeing the nature of them, I do not think it has been in bad judgement... I have in fact noticed that his behaviour has been very correct and constructive in connection with many controversial articles. And since Jayjg is amongst the ones actually using the discussion pages very actively, your "warning" seems more than a bit mystifying to me.... Friendly greetings, Olve 08:43, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Ta bu shi da yu, thanks for your heartfelt advice. I certainly don't intend to break the 3 revert rule in the future, and don't recall any recent incidents of doing so. As Olve points out, I have been quite active on Talk: pages, trying to encourage new editors to participate in consensus building, rather than simply inserting POV. In the most recent cases, I did manage to get Abdel Qadir to the page eventually, but his only response was to claim that the months old agreement on the page wasn't actually there, and then revert for a fifth time. I do work through the processes available here, as flawed as they are, but my experience with WP:PROT tells me that the pages only get protected after an edit war, sometimes considerably after. I do strongly appreciate your stepping in on some of the most contentious articles (e.g. Ariel Sharon); in general, that's all I'm really looking for, someone who is able to be NPOV to step in and help restore NPOV to the articles, as you have done. By the way, there are a couple of comments there I was hoping you could address. Thanks. Jayjg 17:29, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your request

I think that mirv blocked Abdel Qadir for violation of the 3RR. I only noticed that after protecting the page. I'm going to leave it locked for a little while if you don't mind. Mainly to discourage that user from coming back via an anonymous IP and reverting again (he might not do this, but I don't want to take any risks). Give it another 24 hours? This will also force him to talk. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality blocked him and the other guy; I just explained the blocks. —No-One Jones ^(m) 08:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.S. I always find it a bad idea to protect/unprotect pages I'm actively editing. Same with blocking users I've reverted. I'd prefer to ask another uninvolved administrator. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:33, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's what I have consistently done. Jayjg 17:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Which I'm aware of, but you did ask for my advice. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And I thank you for giving it. Jayjg 00:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your arbitration, proposed decision

I have messaged Fred Bauer about his proposed 30 day blocks. I have an alternative proposal, only I am not part of the arbcom so am unsure whether I should add to the proposed decision. However, so you are aware of what I would suggest in your arbitration, this is what I've requested:

"I would like to request that the 30 day block not be used. Both editors have valuable contributions for Wikipedia. It would be inadvisable to stop them from editing Arab-Israeli articles, and it would be also not advisable to block them for 30 days from edits. I feel that this will just inflame matters. Instead, I would like arbcom to find the following before taking those sort of actions:

1. Any reverts done must have a brief summary in the talk page for each revert, unless it is a clear case of vandalism. "Vandalism" will not include POV edits. Vandalism will be things like swearing in the article, random text added or patent nonsense added. I will request this because I've noticed the use of the edit summary for discussion, which is not its purpose.
2. Once the 3rd revert occurs both parties must tell another admin so that we can see if they can work things out (whether that be through page locking, a block of the page, or a judicious edit).
3. The use of language by both parties must be modified somewhat. When provoked, we would ask them to take a small break and come back. We ask that they don't incite conflict further by responding in a personal way to perceieved attacks. We recognise that this can be difficult to do at times, but continuous attacks will result in some form of forced mediation.
4. If reverts are made, both parties must place the word "Revert" at the start of the edit summary. This will make it clearer that they are reverting.
5. If reverts are made, additional changes must not be made in the revert itself. Reverts must be made and then additional edits must be made in the reverted copy. When revert+edits were made many people missed this fact and assumed that a straight reversion had been made. In the confusion edits were lost several times. I propose this decision be made to stop this sort of confusion amongst other editors, and to also assist administrators in enforcing the three revert rule."

Ta bu shi da yu 23:32, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The 30 day block is not about breaking the 3 revert rule, it's about abusive behaviour, violations of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, etc., or as the Arbitration Committee has put is "personal attacks" and "disourtesy". The Arbitration Committee has a consistent policy of issuing lengthy blocks for people who violate these rules, and in this case the block is fully justified, and in my view far too lenient. Jayjg 23:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then I must respectfully disagree with you. I feel that the 30 day blocks are far too harsh. I feel that other forms of resolution should be tried first. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ArbCom has a history of coming down harder than this, particularly on people on the Israeli side of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Lance6wins, for example, was permanently banned from editing articles on the conflict for POV, though he displayed less POV than HistoryBuffEr.[6] RK was banned for 4 months for rudeness, though he displayed less rudeness than HistoryBuffEr.[7] IZAK has a proposed ban of 3 weeks on editing Israel-Palestinian articles, even though that is not even part of the complaint against him, and there hasn't been evidence of him editing those articles with POV.[8] I'm afraid any decisions of the type you are proposing would give ArbCom the appearance of bias towards those promoting the Palestinian POV, particularly HistoryBuffEr, not to mention making a joke of the civility policies. Jayjg 00:10, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then there needs to be some reform to the ArbCom. With new members appearing, this may happen. I stand behind my comments and proposed remedy for HistoryBuffEr. I feel it is only fair. I think the 30 day block should only be pursued if HistoryBuffEr doesn't abide by the arbcom decision, which I doubt he would do. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:55, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, go ahead and use my responses as you see fit. Slim 01:50, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Could you help me?

Hey, I seem to have been banned for 24 hours for breaking the 3RR...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist ... however it is clear I have only two reverts. I want to assume good faith, but i was unaware of the 1RR that I violated. Thanks Nasrallah 207.44.180.48 03:01, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nasrallah is clearly a sockpuppet created solely to get around the 3RR: it had no user page, it had no talk page, its only edits were reverts of an article in the throes of an edit war, and it was clearly familiar with the ongoing dispute over Yasser Arafat. My block was a preemption of an pathetically sleazy attempt to circumvent the basic norms of good editing; if you happen to know who was pulling Nasrallah's strings perhaps you could help explain how this sort of thing is frowned upon. —No-One Jones 03:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore the IP address it is now using is that of an anonymizing proxy—not prima facie evidence of bad faith sockpuppetry, but suspicious nonetheless. —No-One Jones 03:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's also interesting that it came directly to this talk page to complain about the block, rather than e-mailing me (as nearly every other user I've mistakenly blocked has done) or writing to wikien-L (as MediaWiki:Blockedtext instructs it). Again this is not conclusive evidence of sockpuppetry, but it's damn suspicious nonetheless. —No-One Jones 04:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Mirv. I know even less about User:Nasrallah than you have already figured out. And I suspect he might have come to my page because I welcomed him on his own Talk: page. However, I still feel it is a violation of process to ban someone for violating a rule which they clearly have not violated, and we don't have a "ban suspected sockpuppets" rule that I'm aware of. I also note that you did not act nearly this precipitously with the User:Goldberg sockpuppet; I would be a little less troubled if I saw some consistency in your actions. (This note has been crossposted to your Talk: page as well). Jayjg 04:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Three revert rule specifically says: Use of sockpuppets (multiple accounts) is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit, and that's clearly exactly what Nasrallah was doing, so I think my actions were justified. As for Goldberg, I would have blocked him if I had spotted him in action, as I did with Nasrallah—you'll notice how my block came three minutes after the puppet's second revert on Yasser Arafat. I'll also point out the case of User:FamilyFord car4Less, another obvious sockpuppet, who I blocked two minutes after I spotted him. —No-One Jones 04:16, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you did block FamilyFordcar4Less, and that was much appreciated, though unfortunately he managed to get in 4 reverts before the blocking. Anyway, assuming Nasrallah is a sockpuppet, the only way this could be a use of a sockpuppet to get around the 3RR is if you are accusing Viriditas of using Nasrallah as a sockpuppet; is that what you are saying? Frankly, Viriditas is scrupulous about following Wikipedia rules, and has only acted in the most honourable manner throughout his editing history on Wikipedia. And it doesn't make sense Viriditas would do so anyway, he still had two reverts left, and everyone else who is tired of HistoryBuffEr and Alberuni inserting HistoryBuffEr's personal version of the article has 3 reverts left. Wouldn't it make more sense for someone to use a sockpuppet after their 3 reverts are used up? Anyway, the many editors who are concerned about this specific issue and actually contribute positively to Wikipedia (and I can think of at least a half dozen offhand) could easily handle these attempts to insert personal POV versions, without any need to resort to sockpuppets. Jayjg 04:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely right; there are enough editors who could have reverted quite legitimately that I find it puzzling that one of them would have to resort to using such an obvious sockpuppet (in addition to all the evidence above, its posts on my talk page betray a familiarity with Wikipedia processes that no new user has ever demonstrated). It is strange. Perhaps whoever is controlling Nasrallah would like to explain why s/he felt it necessary? —No-One Jones 04:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not understand how explaining my status to you, mirv, will be of any help to anyone and I doubt its relevancy. I did NOT violate the 3RR. You have no evidence to contradict that. Discussion of my status is a red herring. Your ability to mind read and predict the future, whilst intriguing, are not really relevant in a discussion of your obviously flawed decision to block me. It is not against explicit wikipedia policy for me to revert an article TWICE. I did not seek to avoid the 3RR limit, something that jayjg has made clear. If you unblock me, apologise and make assurances you will enforce actual policy on 3RR, there will be no need to go further up the dispute resolution ladder. You have showed bad faith throughout mirv, I am giving you a chance to show some good faith.

You have singularly failed to prove illegitimate activities. Nasrallah 65.29.84.147 07:36, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Preemptive action is fashionable at the moment, but I had NOT broken the 3RR, and the only way you could know that I was going to do that was if you were a mind reader. Cool trick. Nasrallah 64.191.63.213 04:13, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey, do you think it is a good idea for me to go to RfC, with regards to mirvs abuse of sysop powers? Would there be enough support for it? Thanks Nasrallah 01:30, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 15:07, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)