User talk:Jayjg/Archive 2

"Interestingly"

I see that word all the time on Wikipedia -_-

I don't like the word in Wikipedia either. WhisperToMe 02:14, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

David Irving article

Hi, first I want to thank you for all the help copyediting that article, and yes, and right now I’ve already taken a look at talk.GeneralPatton 22:00, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OOP

Please have a look at Occupation_of_Palestine when you have a chance. I have had to revert changes made by HistoryBuffEr twice now. He has inserted massive POV into Ed Poor's revision, and he insists that doing so is "neutral". --Viriditas 04:58, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vote: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis. Thank you. IZAK 09:31, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Input

Thanks for bringing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK to my attention. It seems that "HistoryBuffer etc" will stop at nothing to further his aims, including manipulation of well-meaning admins. Pity. IZAK 03:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ridged band

Hi, you stated: "(Actually, placing it there was poisoning the well, particularly in light of the wording. Either prove he committed medical fraud, or leave it where it belongs)"
I suggest that you have it back to front. Is it not on the person who makes the original assertion where the burden of proof lies? How can someone look through a microscope at foreskin remnants from cadavers and decide eureka that he has discovered/confirmed/whatever a sexual function for a specific part of the item? If you do not understand the difference between Meissner's corpuscles and Vater-Pacini corpuscles then should you really be making comment re the crux of the argument in this case? I hereby therefore respectfully request that either you inform yourself of the issues around the circumcision debate (and therefore be able to make an informed contribution) or step back from involvement lest you inadvertently find yourself supporting POV from one side or the other in the mistaken belief that you are accurately promoting NPOV. - Robert the Bruce 01:37, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether or not the ridged band has the characteristics claimed for it, but rather your implication that the research was fraudulent because the researcher is anti-circumcision. If this implication is, in fact, true, then state it outright, and bring evidence. If it is not true, then stop poisoning the well and move on. Jayjg

• I note with sadness that you have taken a blade to a few of the articles. I am not sure that this sort of action serves any positive purpose at all as it invites others to make unannounced deletions as the spirit moves them. Again here you seem to have acted before you informed yourself. The issue with the CIRP web site is not in itself that it is obviously anti-circumcision but rather that it carefully selects material, places it on its web site often with inserted notes and text highlights to guide the reader to the "correct" understanding of the material. This is what makes those particular (altered) articles propaganda as opposed to pure "take it or leave it" information. What alternative is there to this? For someone to set up an alternative web site containing the same or other articles with yet more highlights and inserted notes to sell a different POV? What I am suggesting is that either all the material from CIRP that has been so "edited" will not be allowed on Wikipedia or a suitable disclaimer/warning is posted at every CIRP reference or cite. I would like you to give this some serious thought. Thanks - Robert the Bruce 03:44, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We've already discussed this, Robert, and I have given it some thought. Please re-read our discussion here: Talk:Circumcision#Less_questionable_link_and_stats . Jayjg 03:48, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• With respect, no we did not discuss anything. You stated your case and I stated mine then you continued to ignore the fact that CIRP has articles there they have inserted notes and highlighted certain sections. I put it to you that this manipulation of other peoples articles coverts it to propaganda and therefore should not be allowed on Wikipedia. So let us please concentrate for a moment on this unacceptable practice of CIRP if you will. Do you find the use of such propagandised texts acceptable? A short answer will do. - Robert the Bruce 17:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While less than ideal, highlighting does not convert a scientific paper into propaganda. And if the notes are clearly editorial, and well distinguished from the original paper, then they do not automatically disqualify the paper from inclusion as well. Of course, this would have to be examined on a case by case basis. A better solution would be to find un-highlighted and un-noted version of the paper. That said, an even better solution would be for you to continue presenting the opposing position, using recognized and up-to-date medical studies, and to challenge unsupported anti-cicumcision claims; this is the most valuable contribution you have made so far. Unfortunately your combative and often insulting Talk: rhetoric, and your insistence on absurd disclaimers, has almost un-done your other good work. Jayjg 20:22, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I will ignore the comment of a personal nature. I do however challenge you to produce a disclaimer that is not absurd. Are you game? - Robert the Bruce 03:23, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In general no disclaimer is required for link in the article; if the article is factual, it is simply referenced, if not, it shouldn't be linked in the first place. In the External links section on the bottom classifying the websites as pro or anti circumcision is all that is necessary. Jayjg 03:46, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• What wording would you suggest and how would you categorise the various sites? - Robert the Bruce 15:57, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In the External links section Anti-circumcision sites should be noted as "Anti-Circumcision", and pro-circumcision sites should be noted as "Pro-circumcision". What more would one need? Jayjg 16:40, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• So far so good, but you are avoiding the crucial question. What does one do about links which have inserted comment and hightlights from a third party so as to turn the piece into propaganda? - Robert the Bruce 02:16, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nothing. You call the site anticirc and let the readers decide for themselves. Otherwise you are trying to force wikipedia readers to think what you want them to about the site which is exactly what you are accusing cirp of doing.Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 05:43, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

New articles up for review

Please see the latest three articles in pages up for review, in Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism. RK 01:55, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg or Walabio check e-mail

Walabio. I'm sorry I've been serving as an adhoc adviser and mediator for him. I wrote curretly and I apologize for the misundertanding. You may wan to consider archiving some of your talk its 66 kb long. You can do so by moving some or all of the page here User talk:Jayjg/archive1 or at another location of your choosing and adding a link on one of your user/talk pages. :) -JCarriker 14:29, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, I don't understand your change!

You changed the sentence to read, "*Many wear a kippah (Jewish head covering), prayer shawls and tzitzit." Many cannot wear a single kippah; many must wear many kipot. "Tzitzit" is already plural as is, of course, "prayer shawls." The sentence was correct as it was originally written. Raina 05:31, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Jayjg 05:34, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Genocide against Israelis in the form of Suicide Bombers

Looking for your support against User:Bsktcase on page Genocides in history regarding breach of genocide convention against Israelis. Please support the NPOV article posted and help keep it there. User:Evolver of Borg

number of edits

Hi Jayjg, --Here's how I check the number. You need a text editor with a line number feature (or you could use Excel). Click on your contributions: now click on one of the numbers of contributions above other than the default (e.g. "100"); your URL will now show http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&target=Jayjg&limit=100&offset=0 or something very similar. Now change the number from 100 to a number which you are sure is larger than your number of contributions. When the page finishes loading, copy and paste the entire thing into a text editor (or bring it into Excel). Turn on line numbers, and there you have it! I count 3054 for you. I'm yet to find an easier way. Happy editing! Antandrus 15:03, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Autoreverts

When you're using the magic sysop button to revert something that isn't obvious vandalism, you should probably leave an explanation on the talk page; the automatic summary (Reverted edits by X to last version by Y) can seem rude and dismissive otherwise. —No-One Jones ^(m) 22:36, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're right; I just get a little tired of Holocaust deniers trying to disguise their agendas. Jayjg 01:52, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rogue admin?

Are you aware Blankfaze has a put an "Alert" on his user page calling you a "rogue admin"? I don't know what happened between you two, but I can say I don't take Blankfaze too seriously myself. VeryVerily 11:48, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks VeryVerily. I wasn't aware of that. I'm not particularly concerned. Blankfaze was the strongest opponent of my becoming an admin in the first place, and he appears to be turning this into a vendetta against me now. Jayjg 01:51, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Nothing "happened" between the two of us; I just notice his POV-pushing and his misuses of admin powers and I want people to consider checking up on him from time to time. blankfaze | (беседа!) 05:01, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, blankfaze, something did "happen" between us; you very strongly opposed my adminship in the first place, and now appear to be trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. In any event, how and when have I misued my admin powers? In fact, exactly how many times since becoming admin have I used admin powers? Jayjg 01:51, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Was reading the rather vibrant discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Neutrality and one person said he was voting no because of his concern Neutrality would become a "rogue administrator" like yourself, whatever that means. Thought you should know in case you wanted to reply. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 17:07, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks for the update! Xed and Blankfaze have had a vendetta against me since my nomination for adminship (actually, Xed's preceded the nomination). However, it's an axiom that anything that Xed opposes, by definition, is good. :-) Jayjg 17:30, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is that official policy yet? I guess systemic bias is good as well. -- Xed 14:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not official policy, but it is certainly true. And you don't oppose systemic bias, you're just looking for a socially acceptable back-door way of promoting anti-Americanism. Now why don't you go vandalize the John Kerry article again? Jayjg 17:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"socially acceptable back-door way of promoting anti-Americanism." - I'm going to have that framed as proof of everything I have said about you. ---Xed 17:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Along that line, Jayjg, I thought you might want to know that User:Alberuni requested my assisstance in dealing with you. I responded as helpfully as I could. Salam. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 20:30, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

"Who else speaks Ladino?"

Probably this user had visited my userpage, without knowing I'm the exception to the rule. :) Etz Haim 02:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Olve's right. I had completely forgoten about the small, now extinct, Ashkenazi community of Thessaloniki. Etz Haim

Unfortunately Adam is not editing any historical-political articles

Thanks for your message. No, I will not be editing on any historical-political articles for now, for the reasons I have stated. The text is there for you or others to use if you want. Adam 02:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Apologies

After already crossing your steps in the VfD ofOccupation of Palestine and Talk:West Bank, now I was awakened by my watchlist at your edit of Druze, please see Talk:Druze. Please be assured that I'm genuinely interested in advancement of the articles in a friendly and NPOV spirit. --Pjacobi 17:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have no doubt whatsoever of that; I have responded at Talk:Druze. Jayjg 18:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"(Israel) in contravention of the Partition plan, began killing and ethnically cleansing Palestinian Arab population. Palestine's five neighbour states then.."

Please see History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict#The war for Palestine where User:HistoryBuffer insists on inserting: that Israel "in contravention of the Partition plan, began killing and ethnically cleansing Palestinian Arab population. Palestine's five neighbour states then attacked Israel."...When no-one but he says this, and refuses to accept anything else. He also insists on editing-away lots of NPOV's that don't suit him, take a look at [1] please. IZAK 08:36, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You may be interested at this - Category:Terrorists

Someone offered to delete this category, because it is "inherently POV". I harshly disagree and voted to Keep. So far, the vote is 6-5 in favour of keep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#.5B.5B:Category:Terrorists.5D.5D MathKnight 12:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Systemic bias

User:Xed fears that our systemic bias project is little more than, in your words, "a socially acceptable back-door way of promoting anti-Americanism". I can't readily determine the context. I would guess that you used that phrase to characterize how Xed is pitching the idea to others. Am I right? [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 18:12, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Just in: Xed told me that he disagrees with your statement. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 18:29, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

While I strongly support the project itself, I also understand its history, and Xed's motivation for promoting it. It grew out of Xed's attacks on Jimbo and his attempts to minimize the significance of the 9/11 attacks. Viewing the development of this project in context reveals much about Xed's motivations. Xed, of course, disagrees with my characteriztion of his motives, as is Xed's right. Xed also deliberately mischaracterizes my statements as being about the project itself, rather than about Xed's motivations, which is not Xed's right, but which is unsurprising knowing Xed. Jayjg 18:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're talking shit as usual. It grew out of my realisation that there's more on Babylon 5 than Congo Civil War - but that would anti-American to you! Where did I minimize the importance the importance of the 9/11 attacks? What does Jimbo have to do with Babylon 5? You are full of bizarre conspiracies --- Xed 19:18, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Review your edit history. Jayjg 19:32, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Review your own, bullshitter. Exactly how is it "a socially acceptable back-door way of promoting anti-Americanism"? --- Xed 19:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"socially acceptable back-door way of promoting anti-Americanism" to "minimize the significance of the 9/11 attacks" - Show me the evidence, or withdraw your statements. --- Xed 01:16, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since you have refused to back-up your statements, after repeated requests, I have submitted the issue to Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation -- Xed 13:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you!

I will never let you down! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:27, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

More importantly, I know you'll never let Wikipedia down. Jayjg 19:33, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It seems we are both on Xed's "rogue admins" list—and I haven't blocked a single user or protected a single page yet! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:46, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

The evidence for the "rogueness" of the other admins listed there is equally "compelling". :-) Jayjg 19:49, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hasbara

What's the issue there? Just the anti-Israel/anti-Hasbara thing? Ambi 06:29, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, initially Alberuni just created it as a redirect to Propaganda; that was the issue at the time. However, IZAK solved that by turning it into a worthwhile article, so the only current issue with it I still see is that Alberuni insists on including it in the [[Category:Propaganda]]. Jayjg 06:33, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please take a look at the number of edits Alberuni has reverted in the last 24 hours. It appears to exceed the three revert rule. --Viriditas 05:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Questioning Consensus

I wanted to alert you to an error in your indentation/reply in the "Questioning Consensus" section of the Occupation of Palestine article. I was going to fix it, but I decided it would be best to ask you to fix it since you are the author. At the end of that section, you indented your comments in reply to me, instead of HistoryBuffEr, and it looks like you are referring to my comments when in fact you are not. Would you mind fixing that? All you have to do is remove one indent or ":". Thanks. --Viriditas 06:39, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done. Jayjg 06:41, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Getting back to you

Sorry, but I've had very little time for the Wikimedia world recently. I just noticed that even having resolved the Tanakh chapters business, I never even got around to updating the article based on the resolution! In the immediate meantime, I just found out that a vote began on my WikiSource Proposal Wikisource:Wikisource:Scriptorium/Language_domain_proposal, so I'm going to take care of that first. I'll get back to the Israel-related articles as well, though.Dovi 11:00, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Civility

Jayjg hi. Stalking unconstructive users to pages in the main domain space is one thing. I do that myself. But answering Alberuni's reply on Benc's page was in my opinion out of line. Have some respect for Benc's judgement! Don't let Alberuni's rudeness cloud your vision (I know it's hard).

Just my 2c. Gadykozma 01:57, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:GeneralPatton suggests that HistoryBuffer be taken to Arbitration

From User:IZAK#Opposing Anti-Semitism on Wikipedia: See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK

:Izak, from my own experience, I suggest you now take HistoryBuffEr straight to Arbitration, and demand he be banned from all articles concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You have a great and compelling body of evidence against him. GeneralPatton 19:36, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Users are asked to please help set this in motion.

Pathetically, HistoryBuffer is now antagonizing more people at Holocaust denial examined, see the "history" of that page and the "revert wars" and other stuff at Talk:Holocaust denial examined IZAK 02:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC):

"This article contains an unsubstantiated assertion about the use of term "Zionist" by Holocaust deniers. The Zionist extremist and Palestine denier Jayjg keeps reverting any attempt to correct the false implication that anyone using the term "Zionist" is/could be a Holocaust denier, without supplying any evidence for the assertion. HistoryBuffEr 07:48, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)"

Reverts by Alberuni

User:Alberuni has now exceeded the three-revert rule on Hasbara. I can't tell exactly how many reverts he has done in the last 24 hours, but it's hovering somewhere around six. --Viriditas 09:05, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Aramaic language in Jerusalem Talmud

Is it your view that the amount of Western Aramaic in the Yerushalmi is comparable to the Babli? My copy of the Yerushalmi is definitely mainly in Hebrew -- and so is any other copy I have ever seen or studied. Looking forward to hearing your opinion... שבת שלום ! -- Olve 21:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Olve, I've responded on the Jerusalem Talmud Talk: page. Jayjg 02:00, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

John Zorn

I don't really care either way on some of the ostensibly "famous" Jews, but John Zorn is, indeed, pretty famous, prossibly the most famous living avant garde jazz musician in the U.S., and emphatically Jewish: one of his groups is called Masada, he did an album called Bar Kokhba, and he has done some of the most interestingly contemporary reworkings of klezmer music, plus has systematically used material from other Jewish jazz and rock musicians, notably an entier album each of Serge Gainsbourg and also one of Mark Bolan. Again, I don't care if he's in or out, but I'd have picked him as a more emphatically Jewish voice in contemporary music than Gainsbourg. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Well, please feel free to add him back then. I'm a bit gun-shy about that list, ever since that anon kept adding Howard Stern. Jayjg 08:03, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Terrorists

Hi Jayjg, on the category VfD you wrote:

• Keep. Anyone who deliberately targets civilians for political purposes is a terrorist. Jayjg 16:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Would include in that e.g. Iyad Allawi who recently told Fallujah that their city would be bombed unless they gave up Zarqawi (who is almost certainly not in the city) ? When the city will be flattened soon, it will clearly be collective punishment of civilians. What reasoning allows us to decide wether this is terrorism or not? I'm genuinely interested in your answer.
I completely agree with you statement btw., and I think in almost all cases, there shouldn't be any problem as to the facts. However, I feel in practise it's a different story. - pir 13:06, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's a bit more complicated in that case; if you read the terrorism article you will note, under Definition: "Legitimacy. Some hold that a legitimate government cannot, by definition, commit terrorism on its own territory. In this view, a state can commit war crimes or crimes against humanity, but these actions are distinct from terrorism." This kind of act might well be a crime against humanity, depending on exactly what was done, but would not necessarily be terrorism. Was Saddam Hussein a terrorist for targeting his own countrymen (say, the Marsh Arabs)? Was Assad a terrorist for slaughtering the inhabitants of the Syrian town of Hama? I would argue that they were not terrorist for these acts, though they were criminals. Jayjg 17:56, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point. However, your argument assumes that it is possible for a legitimate government or leader to use terroristic means - I would argue that a government or leader loses all legitimacy the moment they target civilians in an indiscriminate fashion. I don't know much about legalistic definitions of legitimacy and terrorism, so this is more from an ethical point of view. In addition there doesn't seem to be a good reason why terrorism and crimes against humanity exclude each other (for example, Robert Fisk consistently calls the 9/11 terrorist attacks a "crime against humanity", which I think is much more in line with how they were perceived around the world). The distinguishing feature of terrorists is not whether they have already achieved or are still seeking a position of state power, but a particularly nihilistic ruthlessness towards civilians in the pursuit of their favourite political project. In my opinion "legitimate" governments should not be "immune" from the label of terrorism - after all the term comes from Reign of Terror, and it seems to me that what unites all terrorists - bin Laden, Hamas, Allawi, Stalin, Baader-Meinhof gang etc. - is the foul sentiment expressed by Robespierre as "La terreur n'est autre chose que la justice prompte, sévère, inflexible." ("Terror is nothing other than prompt, severe, inflexible justice."). - pir 00:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Request for assistance

What are you asking me to do? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:48, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

You say, "Please do whatever you think is reasonable and appropriate." I think that having little idea of the facts in the areas where you are disagreeing it is not "reasonable and appropriate" for me to edit the article. I'd suggest that you temporarily leave his edits stand (nothing so drastic that it will be appalling to leave it up there for a day), make your case point-by-point on the talk page, seek comment from others who've been involved in the article, including Style whom I can see you've already invited to discuss it there, and see if anyone else steps in and consensus can be reached. But all that you can do without me. Is there something concrete you want me to do? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:01, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

You say you want him (I'm paraphrasing) dealt with severely. What are you asking me do do? Put an announcement on my user page a la User:Xed calling him a rogue? If you want to raise complaints against him, there are channels for that. I don't see any emergency here, it's not like he's going all around Wikipedia damaging articles. The issue, presumably, ought to be how we ultimately get a good article on the topic, not whether his behavior annoys you. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:13, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Messiah "in Christianity"

A balance between the viewpoints is suggested. As most who identify themselves as Christians would take exception to someone claiming to be Messiah in the place of (or alongside with) Jesus and in light of your disagreement over this, I created a "marginal" viewpoints category. That is the acceptable term given to such groups in various almanacs and seemed appropriate given your inclination. Again, though, most Christians would take exception to the multiple messiah idea.

"Marginal" is a POV description. Jayjg 20:55, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Solved the problem by deleting the part I suggested as "In Christianity" as this is effectively discussed in the "New Testament" section and instead of the "marginal" category I had originally elected (I do understand your reasoning, but disagree with it given the number of almanacs using the category), and titled it "Other Messiahs" which effectively describes the category without bias.--eleuthero 21:22, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Protected" template

Did I forget to do that? My apologies—I was on a protecting drive (clearing out requests for page protection. Which article was that? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 23:11, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for voting for me

I appreciate it mate :) - Ta bu shi da yu 08:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph on your User page

Good to see you've not lost your sense of humor and are capable of self-parody. - Xed 15:08, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, now it's your turn to explain your reverts

Jayjg, you kept reverting my additions to 1982 Invasion of Lebanon without explanation and then hypocritically complained that I didn't explain my counter-reverts in talk. So now I have. Now it's your turn. Kindly explain the reasoning behind each one of your reverts. If you cannot give understandable reasons for your reverts, then I can only conclude they were a POV tactic to waste my time and any further such reverts on that page (and perhaps others) will have to be ignored. Thanks. --style 17:06, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Hi style. I don't respond to threats. If you have any requests you wish to make of me, please do so. Jayjg 17:25, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, perhaps you don't understand English. The above is not a threat. It's a request.

I'll state it more clearly: Please explain why you reverted my changes to 1982 Invasion of Lebanon 4 times. --style 17:57, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Unlike your 4 deliberate reverts, I reverted only 3 times. The issue wasn't clarity, it was Wikiquette; "If you cannot give understandable reasons for your reverts, then I can only conclude they were a POV tactic to waste my time and any further such reverts on that page (and perhaps others) will have to be ignored." is a threat. Also, I'm rather tired of people who believe they can ignore Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and I'm not inclined to respond to any who do. "Jayjg, perhaps you don't understand English." is a violation of both of those rules. If you have any civil requests you with to make of me, please do so. Jayjg 18:09, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

He asked Please explain why you reverted my changes to 1982 Invasion of Lebanon 4 times. - Xed 18:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're not style. Jayjg 18:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Xed. That's exactly right. --style 18:13, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Xed is not you. Jayjg 18:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How many times do I have to ask you? Please explain why you reverted my changes to 1982 Invasion of Lebanon 4 times. Pretty please with pink ribbons on top! --style 18:16, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

I can't do that, but I can certainly explain why I reverted your changes 3 times. Jayjg 18:17, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, go ahead, thanks. --style 18:19, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Actually, I'll have to wait until you explain your completely POV re-write of the article without any discussion whatsoever in Talk:, and you and Xed show some good faith by not continually reverting any edits I make, all of which are explained. As it is, there's little point in me getting involved on that page. Jayjg 18:33, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So, in other words, you can't explain your 4 reverts even though you vociferously complained that I didn't explain my reverts. Why am I not surprised? --style 18:36, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Actually, I can explain my objections to your POV insertions, and why I reverted your POV insertions 3 times, but I'm not going to get further involved in that page until I see some good faith, as I have other places on Wikipedia where I can spend my time more profitably. Jayjg 19:29, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nasty comments

See User talk:Style#My condolences on your headache: "He's the slimiest bastard AH on Wikipedia. Alberuni 15:32, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

Yuck, what language. IZAK 10:10, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ten Commandments article

Hi Jayjg. Why did you revert my edits to a new section of Ten commandments without explanation? The new section that I repositioned and shortened was largely a badly written rehash of something covered in the "Introduction" (which I reworded as "Overview"). I have citations to back up everything I put in. ???? Fire Star 18:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You do? Wonderful, please propose the changes in Talk: first, providing citations, so people can respond, rather than making wholesale edits and then saying "justify why my changes shouldn't be there". Unfortunately, as it stands, you have reversed the burden of proof, a common failing on Wikipedia. Jayjg 19:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't think conflating an ungrammatical paragraph with an earlier one which pretty much covered the same ground required proof as such. I don't have a big investment in the article, but I would like to see as much info there as possible. Sinai is called Horeb several times in the OT, for example. A while ago I listed a few of my sources on the "further reading" list of the article. The talk page didn't seem active, your reversions weren't mentioned on the talk page, either. So, my main questions for you are:

1. Which of my edits do you object to?

2. Why do you object to them?

Please know that I am not angry or hostile, but mostly curious. Fire Star 19:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've already raised some of the issues in the Talk: page already. Jayjg 19:19, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

State terrorism edits

Hi there, Jayjg. I dumped one section of the State terrorism article, because it was unsalveable, and gave a detailed explanation why in 'Talk'. It should be re-written, maybe, but it was just ridiculous in its current form. Anyways, take a look and make any edits necessary. Terrapin 19:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Popular Resistance Movements

Stop removing my references to Rachel Corrie. Regardless of whether you think the killing of Rachel Corrie was accidental, there was a vastly different reaction to this killing of an American in Gaza. FBI agents were sent to investigate the killing of the US diplomats, but FBI agents were not even sent to determine in Corrie's death was an accident or not. Given that so many eyewitnesses thought it was a murder, you'd have thought the Americans would want to check for yourselves. 80.3.160.4 19:34, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Corrie, as I said on the Talk:Popular Resistance Committees page, read the article for details of why it happened, but a terrorist group blowing up a diplomatic convoy accompanied by military support is nothing like an American activist getting run over after playing cat and mouse for an extended period of time with a bulldozer. NPOV doesn't mean including information not relevant to the page in order to make the "other side" look bad too. Jayjg 21:02, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Email

Hi Jayjg,

Please send emails to to josiahXXXkaraiticaZZZcom instead of yoshiahXXXancient-pathsZZZnet (XXX = at, ZZZ = dot). I have not figured out how to rectify a problem with some of that server's email software at the time.--Josiah 02:25, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

New project?

Aloha. I think that there needs to be a interdisciplinary project that focuses on promoting accuracy in Near East issues and articles. Also, it would be interesting if you could come up with some guidelines for countering bias, as well as a list of reputable sources that can be accessed for reference purposes. That way, disputed reverts can cite source material, which will give those with an opposite POV the ability to compare the credibility of citations. I'm just thinking off the top of my head, here. What do you think? --Viriditas 10:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not Jay, but I think that would be a great idea. But this type of project might need some "Moderators". If that's too happen, an equal amount users with Pro-Israel & Pro-Palestine biases would be needed. --Josiah 15:14, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Refactoring personal remarks

Since Style removed his/her personal remarks from Talk:1982 Invasion of Lebanon#Discussion, I took the liberty of refactoring out some of yours. Revert me if you think that was inappropriate. —No-One Jones ^(m) 16:34, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I've refactored some of your now out of place comments as well. Jayjg 18:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Jihadist"

You're right, you didn't use the term, and I apologize for any implication that you did. If you re-read the sequence, though, I believe you can see where I would have gotten the misimpression that you were implicitly endorsing it.

Yes, Alberuni is a pain in the ass. It is really two bad we don't have someone working on the article with roughly his POV and a better demeanor, because he makes many valid points, but he gets everyone's hackles up so much that everyone ends up arguing about the rhetoric on the talk page rather than about what the article should say and why. And it doesn't help one iota when people like Josiah choose to match his tone rather than merely criticize it. (Not that I've never been guilty of something similar.) -- Jmabel | Talk 02:01, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

When he makes good edits, they are indeed good. That's why I've really tried to work with him, as opposed to the various other anti-Israel editors on these articles, who have nothing of value to add (or in one case are simply there to troll). I really wish we had Zero0000 back; even though he and I often disagreed, at least he actually knew something about the history of the region and conflict (as opposed to those who just read some anti-Israel website polemics, or an anti-Israel polemical book by Fisk, and imagine that they now know "THE TRUTH" (tm)), and he also knew what NPOV was. Jayjg 02:11, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nation of Islam anti-semitism

Please consider adding the Nation of Islam anti-semitism article to your list of Articles currently under attack. See the history for further info. --Viriditas 22:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

are you a jew or what

ARE YOU AJEW ID REALLY LIKE 2 KNOW --Carpetrocks 03:31, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

just wondering

just wondering Carpetrocks

Rachel Corrie

Why did you replace the text of Rachel Corrie with the complete text of Operation Days of Penitence? --Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:43, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alright. I was really wondering for a second there. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:48, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia policy only allows a user to revert an article 3 times in one 24 hour period. RickK 04:52, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Circumcision and HIV

Greetings, I request that you peruse the section in the Medical analysis of circumcision article and assist to refine the article to an acceptable NPOV level. Many thanks. - Robert the Bruce 09:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FYI, this was covered in The Lancet a couple of months ago. Please email on User_talk me if you need the full reference. JFW | T@lk 12:44, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for your vote for my adminship. I greatly appreciate your support. ffirehorse 00:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can't get involved now

Hi Jayjg, sorry I won't be able to get involved right now. I've decided to do some work in the real world and stay away from Wikipedia for a couple of months (I'm really busy writing up my PhD thesis which I need to finish by the end of the year). I think the only way to solve all these edit wars will be for both sides to agree to disagree, accept that at Wikipedia the respective versions of The Truth can only be described as views, and tolerate fair descriptions of the conflicting views in the articles in questions. All those editors who reject this kind of tolerance should be banned from editing the articles in question. - pir 16:08, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Zionist Revisionism and Israeli-Palestinian history denial

To purge your page to see what others have added, click here

What we have here is a very complicated situation. There appears to have been a copy and paste move done between Zionist Revisionism and Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict. I am quite happy to merge the two and setup a redirect, however because Zionist Revisionism is on VfD at the moment I don't want to do anything like this right at this moment. Also, it is further complicated by the fact that there is another article called Israeli-Palestinian history denial, that's almost exactly the same as the other two. I'm sending a message to all participants so far, requesting their comments on what they think we should do. My own preference is to merge into a more appropriately named article, something like Historical perspectives of Israelis and Palestinians (as that's what this is all about), but I'm flexible. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Hi Ta bu shi da yu, Zionist Revisionism was the original article. I had moved it to Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict in an attempt to NPOV it, but Alberuni undid the changes and the move, without redirecting the other article. I have since redirected the 2nd article to another page.--Josiah 19:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Good idea, or you could just merge all three into Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict. As long as you merge information rather than deleting it, as some have a habit of doing. Don't worry about the VfD entry for Zionist Revisionism; it is invalid. Josiah has, yet again, failed to provide valid reasons for the listing. --style 13:01, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
  • Yet again? You obviously don't watch anything I actually do, as 1) That was the first page I had ever put up for deletion - the fact that I had done it wrong should be proof of that, and 2) I and others listed perfectly good reason on the VfD page.--Josiah 19:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I would avoid POV titles that are bound to be challenged. As for the VfD entry, it is perfectly valid to list the article for VfD, and the entry will be dealt with via the usual VfD process. Jayjg 15:18, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I would suggest not to use the word "revisionism" in the title at all. It it nothing but an allusion to historical revisionism (a.k.a. Holocaust denial). Since none of the holders of these views on either side consider their views "revisionism", it would be better if the title did not contain this word. Finally, the potential for confusion with te unrelated Revisionist Zionism is enormous. More seriously, I also cannot see how any such page would contain anything but POV fights. Is that really what we need? Does it make sense to keep a list of historical points were Alberuni disagrees with Jayjg? Is that encyclopedic? Gadykozma 03:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • You have neatly summarized exactly what is wrong with the word "Revisionism", thank you. Jayjg 03:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

• OK, I have merged most of the information in the article Zionist Revisionism into the article Israeli-Palestinian history denial. I have not attempted to NPOV it, I just merged it. Please feel free to NPOV the Israeli-Palestinian history denial article. Please do not think I am endorsing the views of either side. I'm not. I'm just trying to sort out merging of articles. I would next like to merge page histories, if that's OK with people. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I have now merged the edit histories of Israeli-Palestinian history denial and Revisionism in the Israel-Palestine Conflict. At least this bit is sorted out now. If someone wants a better title, please use the move tool in future! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Proteus

Thanks for the heads up, but I've already replied (RfC is on my watch list). As I've said there, there isn't a case to answer, so I'm not worried by it in the slightest. He seems to want me to threaten me into unprotecting the articles, but he's just wasting his time. Proteus (Talk) 21:34, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome...

(copied from my user talk page - Jmabel | Talk 22:27, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC))
I appreciate your efforts in trying to remain neutral and bring some calm and sanity to the current wars over the Israeli-Palestinian articles. Jayjg 20:56, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
(end copied text)

You're welcome; it's been really hard because in the last week or so I've been embroiled in similar messes with reference to Romanian history and Basque nationalism, and only a little less so over Chile 1970-'73. So many separate things that except for the few really egregious miscreants or the people I've worked with a long time and learned to trust, I have trouble even keeping track of who's who.

My plea to you and others -- and I realize you've been pretty consistently positive in your approach -- is that people try to get all facts and all relevant, responsible points of view into the article, even opinions they disagree with and inconvenient facts, and try to keep the narrative voice of the article neutral. An illustration of what I mean is the work I did at Post-September 11 anti-war movement. While admittedly some of that is still under a neutrality dispute -- I don't know what it would take to make User:Get-back-world-respect happy -- we managed to get this to where at least User:MathKnight and I are both OK with it, and I imagine you've worked with both of us enough to know that was not easy. (Actually, I'm not sure the article could ever be acceptable to both User:Get-back-world-respect and User:MathKnight at the same time.) Still, what I wanted to point to is the quotations I added from Noam Chomsky, Vijay Prashad, and Martin Woollacott. It's not convenient to my politics that they all felt it necessary when condemning the September 11 attacks, with the dust still in the air they chose to immediately add "but of course America has done equally bad things..." The fact is, though, that's what they said, and I'm the one who added this material. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:27, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Request for comment

I'm interested. Just very confused why there are so many articles now! Give me a while to look into this, OK? Just to let you know, I have no viewpoint either way right at this moment. I'll try to remain unbiased, and will try to be as fair as possible to both sides of the site. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:40, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proteus RFC

I have commented on this RFC. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Demographic history of Kosovo

Hey, thanks for that - I didn't know how long the "fight" would have continued otherwise. The article still needs a lot of work to look professional and to be 100% neutral - but this should be tackled by someone who is absolutely impartial - preferably one who hasn't edited it until now. Besides, I don't have the nerves to work on articles which have an active contribution from Nikola Smolenski any more. VMORO

Rant

is this your version of NPOV - [2]?

"The Jews against Occupation spokesman went on to rant about Israel, stating ..."

-Xed 17:39, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Put messages on Talk pages

Hi Jayjg, you recently sent me an important message but you left it on my User:IZAK "user page" when it should have been placed on my "DISCUSSION page" also known as the "talk page" at User talk:IZAK (I know that in a rush these things can get overlooked...) Thanks again. IZAK 06:39, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lots of tiny, overlapping articles

Jay, I had an idea: Wikipedia:Palestine series can keep track of the overlap. It's already helped me to locate some duplicate sections of text, which I've moved or deleted. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 19:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Numbers and references

Please review my comments at the bottom of the Talk:Neo-Nazism page, under the section, Numbers, numbers... Is my statement accurate, and are my cites adequate? Thanks in advance. --Viriditas 04:51, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lots of editing on the various Jesus articles

Hi Jayjg. We'Ve currently got two very active new users, User:The Rev of Bru and User:CheeseDreams, who have started a crusade to "neutralize" all the articles on Jesus. Normally, they go too far, but it is quite hard to keep up with them, and I'm a little afraid about going too far in reverting them. As an "outsider" who is well-informed about the topic, maybe you could have a look-though to make sure the articles haven't gone too far one way or the other. Of the two, The Rev of Bru tends to be rather combative and accusatory, while you can actually have a discussion with CheeseDreams. Neither of them show a whole lot of desire to support their claims (and of course, the sorry state of support for claims in those articles at present gives them every right to ask why they, in particular, have to support claims). If I get a good chunk of time here in the near future, I'll try to provide some cites for at least the "Christian" critical scholars. I don't have much on the line of sources for the skeptics, except for the straw men set up in popular books on the topic. Thanks a million! Mpolo 09:05, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

I'll do my best, but I'm quite involved with some POV warriors trying to ruthelessly inject extreme bias into various articles right now, including Yasser Arafat, so I'm a bit tied up. Jayjg 09:07, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand that you're watching a lot of controversial pages... Whatever you can manage. Mpolo 09:34, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for watching. I agree that CheeseDreams has been pretty reasonable. I did one major edit of his work last night to restore neutrality, and he accepted that, and his edits after that point were much better to my mind. The Rev of Bru has already been contacted by three editors on his talk page about his editing style/POV-warrior-hood, but says he's going to work on less controversial pages for a while... So maybe the tempest has blown over. Mpolo 08:56, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Obstetrics

You might want to keep an eye on Obstetrics. Walabio added a POV circumcision rant disguised as a procedure in the Labour section. He seems to be an activist for "Genital Integrity". He keeps his talk page blank (like HistoryBuffEr) but archived here. --Viriditas 20:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

New VfD

Alberuni's new page, Israeli violence against Palestinian children has been nominated for VfD. Please vote. --Viriditas 10:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Palestine, etc.

I didn't understand your answer at Talk:Struggle_over_Palestine#Reply_to_Jmabel. Please see my request for clarification there. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:13, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Irate

I was going to leave wikipedia because of Irate, however I figured I should stay.--198 22:59, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Jay,

Happily, I am considerably more employed than I used to be. Unhappily, this means I have less time to devote to Wikipedia. I am still regularly checking my watched pages and trying to contribute to decreasing systemic bias by writing about Venezuela and labor unions. If you want to work on Israel Shahak, I will do my best to help you out, though I may not be able to keep up.

Peace,

DanKeshet 19:23, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade, aka "Thomas Jefferson"

Sam Spade is engaging in historical revisionism on Nazi Germany and Pursuit of Nazi collaborators. --Viriditas 22:37, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Libertarianism

Well done for protecting this, but the version you have protected is the vandalised version. Please switch to the version before that. 172.202.238.189

Please see Wikipedia:The Wrong Version Jayjg 02:10, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cultural and Historical Background of Jesus

I'd appreciate your thoughts on Cultural and Historical Background of Jesus, especially concerning my differences with Cheese. Thanks, Slrubenstein

I have added your recent protection of the POV version of Cultural and historical background of Jesus rather than the NPOV version to the requests for arbitration page. I think this is an abuse of adminship. CheeseDreams 08:54, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, can you see what is going on on the Cultural and historical background of Jesus page? I did not protect it; I am not sure whether Cheese did (which would be wrong, as he is the vandal here) or you -- I don't understand Cheese's comment above. In any event, if you have protected it would you please consider protecting the (Revision as of 23:09, 2 Nov 2004) version -- this version is much closer to the original version of the article (if you use the page history and look at the first version of the article) and factually more accurate. Thanks, Slrubenstein

Okay, I accept what you did. Still, when I first appealed to you I was hoping you would offer your own comments on the different issues on the talk page. I wante dto know what you think. If you feel uncomfortable getting involved in the discussion I understand, though. Slrubenstein

I notice Slrubenstein is trying to bring people who he sees as supporters of his POV into the discussion (see his contributions list). I do not think this is a very NPOV thing to do. CheeseDreams 00:13, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are screwing up the categories

You are screwing up the categories such as Category:Nobel Peace Prize winners by storing versions of pages you are vandalizing, such as User:Jayjg/YA. --Alberuni 18:27, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User_talk:Spleeman#Edits_to_Nazism_and_Pursuit_of_Nazi_collaborators

It sickens me that you would encourage a stalker sockpuppet like User:Spleeman, who has less than 500 total edits [3] (most of which spent harassing me), and hasn't edited since august, to review my edits. You've lost all respect from me (I thought you were a pretty good editor up till now). In the future, take your concerns up with users personally, rather than attempting to bring in Troll muscle. I hope your ashamed of yourself, I am certainly ashamed for you. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 18:48, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea what your talking about, like I told you, and as you can see for yourself [4], spleeman hasn't edited anything in some time, much less disagreed w me about these particular subjects. I think you need to re-evaluate your stance, since it doesn't appear to ad up. User:Spleeman and I used to debate anarchism, months ago. What that has to do with Pursuit_of_Nazi_collaborators or [5] I have no clue, he has never edited the former, and edited the latter once back in august. Perhaps you were confused, or there is some other explanation, but I simply don't see how an editor like User:Spleeman was on your "speed dial" of people to contact w concerns. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 19:10, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For an example of why I got so angry, so fast about this, see User:Spleeman/Sam Spade, User_talk:IZAK#Sam_Spade and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK#Sam Spade's adminship. I have a long, ugly history w this user, and those who use his "evidence" as a smear against me. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 19:30, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Did you confuse User:IZAK w User:Spleeman? Thats my best guess, after thinking hard about this for awhile now. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/IZAK#Seems_basically_resolved_between_Sam_Spade_and_IZAK where I am actively discussing Pursuit_of_Nazi_collaborators w IZAK... [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 19:34, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK..., thats something I never would have expected. In the future please discuss edits with the person who concerns you directly, rather than reaching out to unknown members of their opposition. There is nothing NPOV about unbalancing concensus against a particular editor, esp. when you have no idea who your contacting, and they just so happen to be malicious trolls. Also, just because the User:Spleeman account is inactive doesn't mean the real person behind that account isn't still editing. I assume they are.

In summary, be careful what you say, and who your saying it to, and please speak to those you disagree w directly, rather than rallying opposition to them behind the scenes. Its both more fair, more honest, and more safe (as I hope this particular scenario illustrated).

On a side note, is there anything you'd like to discuss w me regarding Nazism or "Pursuit_of_Nazi_collaborators"? [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 19:54, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Stuff happens, I now accept it was an honest mistake, and that you were unaware of the histories involved. Life is full of mistakes, the key is learning from them. Is there anything you'd like to discuss w me? I promise, I'm not half so horrid as some may think ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 20:04, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your questionable status as an NPOV warrior

I can't believe you claim to an NPOV warrior when it is very obvious that you systematically edit and revert pages that dare to criticise the policies of the Israeli government. You are obviously as Zionist POV warrior and could at least admit it. Kingal86 20:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion

See these six categories up for "votes of deletion":

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Palestinian_terrorists and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Palestinian_terrorist_organizations and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Middle_East_terrorists and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Terrorist_organizations and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Islamic_terrorist_organizations and this one too: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Jewish_terrorist_organizations

IZAK 10:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Prayer of the Heart - The Jesus Prayer

Dear Jayjg,

The prayer of the heart is not a thing to be taken lightly. It has been regarded by the church as a thing that if practiced without years of monastic discipline can lead to spiritual delusion on the grandest scale. Having members of the priesthood and monastics in my family they assure me this is a legitimate danger. It is oddly similar for the ascetic practices of many religions. Buddhists and Hindus practice similar forms of meditation and themselves warn against spiritual delusion among the naïve and those that venture along this path without a guide. The desert fathers tell of many who become delusional from this practice. It is only properly done under the strict control and observation of an experienced elder and I doubt there is any responsible church leader who would disagree with me. The popular book, “The Way of the Pilgrim” is from that late Russian romantic period that tells a story without much substance to it. Its an interesting piece of Russian literature – I have it on my shelf. But anyone who thinks that it is an example of the proper use of the Jesus Prayer must be completely unaware of the danger inherent in the practice.

This was the point of my rewrite.

This is a POV. Please read Wikipedia:NPOV. At a minimum you need to write this idea in a non-POV way, and attribute to the groups which believe it, with references. And please sign your edits. Jayjg 06:00, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Opinion for IZAK

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence. Thank you. IZAK 07:02, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dore Gold

Michael Snow has protected Blankfaze's version of the Dore Gold page, while the consensus on the talk page is in opposition to this version. Please see my comments on this issue. --Viriditas 12:31, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)