User talk:Jayjg/Archive 8

Old talk archived at User talk:Jayjg/Archive 1

"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)

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)