User talk:Jayjg/Archive 8

Please put new Talk: sections at the BOTTOM of this page.

Old talk archived at User talk:Jayjg/Archive 1, User talk:Jayjg/Archive 2, User talk:Jayjg/Archive 3, User talk:Jayjg/Archive 4

Arbitration Committee case opening

The requests against CheeseDreams has been accepted and the case is now open. If you wish, you may bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2/Evidence. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:44, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

High schools in ...

Not every high school is notable, therefore is not included into the Wikipedia... as clearly seen from the VFD process. How can categories accomplish the same thing as a list when there is not an article for every high school? -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat

Well I've added those others to my watchlist. There is also Foreign relations of Turkey, parts of which look a mess, but it doesn't seem to be our friend's doing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PKK page

I do not understand why you had a restore to that page as the information was shifted around. No infomation was deleted, terror network propoganda was filtered. It is a terrorist organisation and I will not tolerate its propoganda. Call me a close minded fool but I will not be declared a cold blooded killer by them.

Let me clarify, it was not the Turkish millitary that killed civilians. Abdullah Ocalan was at best the leader of a Terror Network as recognised by the EU and the US and several other various countries and organishations.

Information was not deleted, instead was moved around so it makes logical sense, terrorist organisation propoganda was filltered as well.

Einstein and Culture of CRitique

Thank you for deleting my consistent contributions named "nonsense" by you.

So I must delete your "nonsense", too, whereever I find it. Do you think that you can be objective in Jewish matters ?

Thank you!

Just a quick "thank you" for voting me for admin. Now all I've got to do is find out how to use these worrying new powers... Grutness|^hello? 05:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Banned again for no reason?!

This is really sick. Simonides and Zero instigated four out of nine Admins to ban me from editing all Judaism articles for a full year. Worse, they did so on the very articles on which I and others have the most success cooperating!

Josiah, JayJG, JFWolff and I have very different ideas about Judaism, yet we obviously have been able to work on these Judaism articles.

It is a gross violation of Sysop and Admin power to create rules that apply to only one person, and to no one else. By definition, when Wikipedia Admins engage in such behaviour, they are violating their own mandate, and thei "rulings" have no authority and are not binding.

1. I am not involved in any flame wars. So why the year long ban? Not a single Wikipedian was ever given a year ban when they were NOT in a flame war.

2. I am not involved in any revert wars or edit wars. So why the ban? Not a single Wikipedia was ever given a ban when they were not in revert for edit wars.

3. The supposed problems are in articles in which the articles HAVE ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED, long ago! So why the ban?

Not a single Wikipedian was ever given a year ban when parties amicably came to an issue. It seems that some Admins are enraged that our system actually worked, and parties peacefully worked out their differences. What kind of hateful people think that such a positive result is grounds for a year long ban?

4. I repeatedly take week-long (or longer) Wiki-breaks to let things cool down and allow other people to have their say without any problem. So why the ban?

5. I have taken many contentious articles OFF of my Watchlist, and simply let others do what they want, rather then engage in multiple arguments. So why the ban?

6. I have asked for and successfully used mediation when necessary. So why the ban? The action to ban me was taken behind my back, without informing me, and proceeded based on false assumptions - and potentially deliberate lies.

I have e-mailed Jimbo Wales and others about this very issue previously; they were all unable to come up with even a single instance of this ever happening. Ever. The entire ban is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and we should not allow four people with a vendetta to wreck our whole system.

We are unfortunately dealing with a small number of people abusing their Admin power out of some sort of personal vendetta. If it happens to one person, it will happen to others. What steps should we take next to initiate disciplinary action against them for these serious violations?

RK 20:42, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC) (Robert)

RE: Adolf Hitler

Saw your frustration with some of the additions of User:Male1979 on the Adolf Hitler article, I too am frustrated as some of his contributions seem to be ridiculous or unfounded. I would support you reverting those additions, should he eventually push you over the top. ;-) —ExplorerCDT 18:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful tweaks following my syntax edits! Wyss 21:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

saw you made again some reverts... nice job. If he will become the nice, charismatic, intelligent boy again as before you can be proud of yourself. Thanks for your nice comments. If it consoles you, I don't think any much better of your edits than you do of mine. ben 14:48, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi resistance page move

Hello - Please vote to support the move from Iraqi resistance → Iraqi insurgency at Wikipedia:Requested_moves. Thanks! (I'm dropping you a note since I've seen you on Iraq-related topics before) ObsidianOrder 11:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I second ObsidianOrder's request. The RM has been hijacked by American jingoists who think "Insurgency" is too light a word and they demand we be frank and call them "Terrorists" and then there are a few nuts who think "Insurgency" is inherently POV demanding an NPOV alternative but never offering any suggestions. We need you. Bring some friends. —ExplorerCDT 17:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3RR

I don't know the details of the disagreement, and I'd really rather not get involved in that. Sorry. RickK 22:02, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

3RR and Chameleon

As far as I can see, I don't think these are reverts. I don't know much about the issue however. The user seems to be providing sources, even if they are to support his POV. I haven't had a chance to check in depth.

On another note, it appears that we've got a bit of a Nazi infestation going on. I just had to block User:SS-88 for making a threat that implied violence against my person. If someone unblocks them and you notice it, please let me know. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks mate. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Treblinka

Somebody removed the steiner ref.

I haven't touched any othe this since '96. I't all very fuzzy... Christopher Mahan 19:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

==General==

Sorry didnt know. I think ==general== is a good idea. as its easier to edit it. (posible without editig the entier article) --Cool Cat 08:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Name of the Bund

The name of the Bund really depended on what country the people were from. I consider myself a Litvak ... Danny 04:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well poisoned?

Dear Jayjg: I was away for quite a long while. I see you have just automatically reverted my changes, without giving reasons. Let me tell you that I am not, as IZAK claims, a Mormon - though that is besides the point. Please state your reasons for reverting the changes made.

I enjoyed our exchanges in the past, but I do not know whether it is of any use for me to try to contribute to this pages, as the well seems to have been successfully poisoned. Hasdrubal 23:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Orthodox Judaism

I'm sorry to tell you that you have no idea about the history of Orthodox Judaism. Please don't erase my contributions to that article. SHASHAZ 09:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see there are quite a few people who have the same problem with you. ben 11:20, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Lebanese Civil War

Hi Jayjg. I'm the guy who inserted the "rabid POV" elements into this article recently. I'm writing not to incite an acrimonious response, but simply to ask a few simple questions that I hope you'll be willing to answer. I edited the article as an experiment: I wanted to see how many of my changes would be incorporated in subsequent edits. As it turns out, judging by a side-by-side comparison I did, none of them survived. On the discussion page, I wrote a mini-essay defending the changes, which you appear to have read; however, in your brief comment on what I wrote, you did not address any of the points I made, other than recycling the observation that Chomsky is "not accepted as neutral or even factually credible" and adding your own view that such people "craft polemics." Meanwhile, you reverted the entry to its "Doug Danner" state. I don't feel you provided a sufficient explanation for your action, so I have recycled a few of my own arguments below, and added a few new ones, in hopes that, since you seem confident about your knowledge of the Civil War, you'll be glad to answer them with arguments of your own. Please feel free to email me your responses at jjsadlier@hotmail.com if you prefer. Incidentally, I'd like to note that my primary source for the edits was Charles D. Smith's *Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict*, a standard scholarly introduction to the topic which is recommended by the history department at Amherst College, where I got my undergraduate degree. I find Chomsky's *Fateful Triangle* is primarily useful for rare quotations of influential figures. If you think Smith is "not accepted as neutral or even factually credible," could you explain why? With one exception, I did not cite anything that is not supported in his text. The exception is the 1976 UNSC resolution, which Smith omits, but Chomsky does not.

(1) Israel's involvement did not begin, as the article implies, with its retaliation to the PLO's commandeering of a bus in northern Israel in 1978. From the early '70s, Israel had been conducting bombing raids against PLO-controlled areas of southern Lebanon, citing as a pretext the "rational prospect" (Abba Eban) that Lebanese civilians would blame the PLO for incurring Israel's belligerence. To suggest that Israel was idly twiddling its thumbs for eight years while the PLO established de facto rule in southern Lebanon is fatuous, whatever one's political allegiances.

(2) The cease-fire hammered out by US negotiator Philip Habib in 1981 was mostly adhered to by the PLO, but it was made a mockery of by Israel, which had made concrete plans to invade Lebanon in September 1981 and spent the rest of the "cease-fire" bombing PLO strongholds, hoping to provoke the PLO into retaliating, which would give Israel a pretext to invade. When the PLO finally did retaliate - by killing one Israeli in retaliation for an Israeli bombing raid that had killed scores of civilians, including some in a Palestinian children's hospital - Israel had its pretext and invaded Lebanon, with the clearly stated intention of destroying PLO infrastructure and bringing an Israeli puppet (Bashir Gemayel) to power in Lebanon. It should be noted that the Israeli bombing raid was itself characterized as "retaliation" for the attempted assassination of an Israeli diplomat in London by the Abu Nidal organization. Leaving aside the obvious question of proportionality, Abu Nidal was a sworn enemy of, and had in fact been condemned to death by, the PLO.

(3) Israel's belligerence was explained in Israel, again quite clearly, as a response to the PLO's "peace offensive," notably including the unequivocal PLO backing of the 1981 Saudi plan, which made the usual calls for Israeli compliance with UN resolutions in return for guarantees of peace within its internationally recognized borders and an independent state for the Palestinians, but going back at least to 1976, when the US vetoed a UNSC resolution with essentially the same language that was supported by the PLO as well as by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. The "peace offensive" was unacceptable for Israel, as it raised the specter of the possible loss of the occupied (or "disputed" if you like) territories, as well as the Golan Heights, which had recently been effectively annexed to Israel proper.

(4) A partial listing of the "polemics" from my edits that did not survive your reversion to the "Doug Danner" edition: (a) the "violent exchanges" between the PLO and Israel from the early '70s onward, culminating in the bus-commandeering incident; (b) hundreds of Israeli violations of the Habib ceasefire in 1981; (c) the specific events - attempted assassination in London; Israeli bombing raid; PLO response; Israeli invasion - leading to the invasion in 1982; (d) the Israeli goal of evicting the PLO from Lebanon and destroying it as a viable political force, as evidenced by the reasons given for the US veto of the UNSC resolution calling for the invasion to be reversed, which you also deleted, depriving readers of this crucial information; (e) Israel's violation of UNSC 425 until its withdrawal in 2000; (f) Israel's backing of Bashir Gemayel, affiliated with the Maronite minority, for the presidency; (g) the fact that Sharon had begun to lay plans for the invasion of Lebanon in September 1981, which might explain Israel's belligerent actions during the cease-fire.

Do you find (1) - (3), as well as (4)(a) - (g), to be other than "neutral and factually credible"? I think you will agree that they cast the events of the Civil War in a profoundly different light than the current article's narrative; for that reason, I think my question is important, and I assume you too will find it so.

Thanks for your time.

Josh

Another anonymous editor has modified your edits and responded in the Talk: page. I'm certainly willing to respond there as well, one point at a time. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:34, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Interesting new edits. I had been making my edits off the top of my head, but the suggestion of sources for esoteric facts is a obviously a good one. In my next round of edits, I will cite every such fact. I would appreciate that point-by-point response, whether on the Lebanon page itself, or I suppose on my "talk page" - not sure how this works, but I'm sure you know. Hope to hear from you. Sneaky ^(talk)

Given your propensity for continued unwarranted insults, I'll withdraw from the discussion here, and restrict myself to reverting your edits instead. That was the outcome you were hoping for, right? Jayjg (talk) 05:04, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is this sarcasm? No, that's not the outcome I was hoping for. You have made claims in this forum, and you have not backed them up; I have challenged you on numerous specific points, and you have not responded. If someone called me "Mini-me" and suggested that I couldn't back up my views, I would feel strongly inclined to respond by backing up my views. If someone repeatedly challenged my unsubstantiated statements, I would feel compelled to respond point-by-point and substantiate my statements. The fact that you are content to revert my edits without defending your actions in this forum will appear as a further illustration of your inadequate grasp of the topics at hand. Is that how Wikipedia's supposed to work, Jayjg? Notice how I have made my edits: by explaining them and documenting them, and by responding to criticisms one-by-one. Sorry, I'm new here - is your way better? Come on. If you're so excited about editing Middle East articles, you must have a modicum of knowledge about the issues. But in my comments here, I have clearly insinuated that you don't. So prove me wrong and respond to my challenges. Or, fine: if you're not up to the task, just revert my edits without saying anything. sneaky 08:13, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Jayjg - thanks for watching my back, and for letting me know a major edit was happening in History of Lebanon. It's nice to see that Sneaky is actually a person you can have a discussion and agreement with. I'm pretty happy with the state of the current edit versus his earliest (Mr. IP) revisions. Your vigillance was important in achieving this outcome, so thanks! I'm going to focus on current Lebanese politics, both because it's important but also because it causes mental pain to anti-Israeli/pro-Hezbollah people. Once I've done enough reading of the history books I've ordered I'll get back to expanding/editing the deep past. It seems like arguing about 1982 is the only measure of comfort pro-Hezbollah people like Mustafaa have left. Heh. Doug March 1, 2005.

Jaygj, thanks for the suggestion that I review the "History of Lebanon" article. I was able to move large sections out of the Civil War article since they were 100% duplicated and fit better into "History." I don't think I made any changes that are ideologically significant to the Civil War article, since mostly I reorganized, cleaned up the chronology and the sections and some of the language. Let me know what you think, if you like. Also, if there is some kind of "timeline" template that would be interesting. Given the number of PMs and Presidents killed along the way it would be interesting to display that discontinuity somehow. Kaisershatner 17:26, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, I read your (correct) comments about the duplication of data in the Leb.CW and History of Leb. articles, and I'm working on merging them...but...this requires modifying the PLO page to add much of the details into "PLO in Lebanon." ...cover me! LOL Kaisershatner 15:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chabad

Hi Jayjg, Robert actually sent me this version by email, and it is better sourced and more comprehensive than before. You may like to trim things that are truly repetitive, but I have no real difficulties. It is better sourced than the rest of the article :-) JFW | T@lk 18:39, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Revisionist Zionism

A poster by the name of AndyL has consistently inserted misleading and disparaging information into this article and has petitioned Jaing to lock it until the issue is resolved. I do not believe it can be resolved because he has shown that his agenda is to provide slanderous, POV information into the article.

For example: He has stated as a matter of factly that the Lehi faction was inspired by Italian fascism and Spanish nationalism. This is hardly the truth as Lehi has different streams, some corporatist some socialist. It was a movement very hard to pinpoint.

Secondly, he has deleted crucial information about the split of the Revisionist movement within Israel and the Diaspora and the fact that Jabotinksy did not have any control over the Irgun faction. He doesnt seem to be interested in historical accuracy and most of his information comes from left wing websites, but he cites outragous and hotly disputed statements as facts.

Please help.

Guy Montag 02:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Finkelstein

The stuff about Finkelstein singlehandedly exposing Peters seems highly dubious to me. This is the Chomsky/Finkelstein/Said narrative. But from looking at the JSTOR archives, what is striking is how a) the book got very little scholarly attention at all; and b) that the reviews are uniformly negative. While the fact that non-specialist mainstream reviewers in the US said good things about it should be noted, the idea that Finkelstein turned things around seems to be a major exaggeration. Of course, it's hard to find anything very conclusive, since nearly everyone writing about the book has such a heavy agenda. john k 03:27, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Help with Edit Summaries

I have looked at Wikipedia manuals, trying to learn the proper text to enter in my edit summaries that will link to the section I have altered, and failed to find it. Will you teach me the codes or point me to the manual that deals with this? I wish to have my summaries conform to Wikipedia standards to aid fellow contributors to the articles I work on. You can answer here or on on my Talk page, if you will. Thank you. --A. S. A. 00:36, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, thanks for your reply on my Talk page. I can now link to the section I have edited, but it does not appear as an arrow and an underscore, but as a full text link "[ [ article name#section name ] ]." How do I create the neat, efficient arrow hyperlink that appears in the edit summaries in the History tab? I'm sorry for being so dense, it's probably very simple and staring me in the face.--A. S. A. 19:46, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

I seem incapable of deciphering this mystery. I don't simply don't understand instructions about how to make the arrow hyperlinks. I'll just have to use the full text hyperlink in my edit summaries. Thanks for trying to help.--A. S. A. 05:26, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Rule of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan

Please see major edits at Rule of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan. Thank you. IZAK 07:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

If you feel I am deserving, I'd like to ask you to support my adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brian0918. Thanks. --brian0918™ 18:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1982 Lebanon Invasion / Fisk

Greetings, I've been reading Wikipdeia for a while but have just begun editing. I took issue with the comments regarding Fisk and Phosphorus weapons in the article and browsed the Discussion page where it seems you have already posted similiar concerns. As a new contributer, my question is this: why is the info still present? Did you remove it only to have it reverted? I am a little confused. Thanks!

Cantillation

The article "Cantillation" may have nothing to do with the music of Mesopotamia, but the "music of Mesopotamia" includes cantillation. Isn't this what a See also is for? If everything in the see also where about the topic of the article then it wouldn't be a see also, it would just be content. Right? Hyacinth 02:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, try to talk about the article in your edit summaries, not to me. Thanks. Hyacinth 02:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In your laste message, by "the article itself" did you mean "cantillation" or "music of Mesopotamia"? Hyacinth 21:53, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Admin

Would you support my becoming an admin, perhaps by nominating me?--Truthaboutchabad 04:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're probably a bit low in edits, and you may need some more community experience, before an admin nomination is likely to pass with sufficient support. JFW | T@lk 10:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kevin McDonald

Sorry, I just haven't had the time. If my version is completely without merit, you have my blessing to revert it. But I'd rather you took a few minutes to preserve the few useful corrections and rearrangements I made. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:27, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

chabad

See the references posted to the chabad talk page. Unsigned by Truthaboutchabad

Well, we should give T.A.C. some credit for actually having an open discussion with us, as well as providing good source material. Please see my response on Talk:Chabad Lubavitch and see if you can agree. JFW | T@lk 10:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

History of Lebanon

Seems like User:Kaisershatner is attempting to chop up the History of Lebanon article into sub articles. I sort of like it being in a central page for readability, but then I have the bias of contributing a lot to this article. I'm not happy that (s)he lauched into this without any prior discussion. Feel free to comment in the article's discussion page. Doug March 3, 2005 17:13:32 (UTC)

Israeli Art Students

Please take a look at this article: Israeli Art Students. It would seem to me like the work of some Neo-Nazi.--AAAAA 10:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Good work! Also, I see this other guy[1] seems to be making some "contributions" worth taking a look at...

Weird email - Hebranaut/"David Tanenbaum"

I got some weird email from some guy. It was about you, so I'm posting it here:

From: Hebranaut <hebranaut411@yahoo.com>
To: CryptoDerk <derk@derk.org>
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail

Hi Cryptoderk
I have been blocked without justification by Jayjg because he and I have
disagreed about his edits. This does not seem fair. Does he have a right to
exclude anyone he wants from Wikipedia? Does he own Wikipedia? Can I be
unblocked by anyone? This seems terribly unfair.

Cheers. CryptoDerk 03:58, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently." Hebranaut is an obvious sockpuppet, since his first (and almost all subsequent edits) were reversions to older versions of Wikipedia pages (sometimes several versions back). As well, given his contributions and edit summaries, it is clear that the sockpuppet was created for the purpose of reversion warring and personal abuse. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This "David Tanenbaum" (user name from subsequent emails) apparently contacted me because my name shows up on the blocklist. If you need to try to prove this guy is a sockpuppet, the IP on the emails was 12.168.24.203, which traces to Grayson, GA. Additionally, I pointed him towards Wikipedia:Mediation and WP:RFC/WP:RFAr for gripes with users & admins. Such is the end of my involvement in this matter. Take care. CryptoDerk 04:28, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I got the same email. Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 05:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

American Defense League

I got a bit curious about this American Defense League nonsense that keeps getting stuck into the ADL article. Boris Pribich is probably the culprit; he's one of the loonier loons out there. His site, www.americandefenseleague.com is one of the most vulgar and insane anti-semitic sites I've ever seen. It's almost funny in a sad sad (and slightly, but not very, scary) way. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Purple Punkin

If this user is a move bot as you stated on the block log you may want to change his block to permanent. Moving "Good editing in progress" to "Pelican shit in progress" makes me think he's the pelican shit move vandal evading a ban. Mgm|^(talk) 12:00, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Odd. I've seen several page move vandals blocked indefinitely the last few weeks, and there wasn't really anything special about the admins doing it. A block I tried failed because someone else already beat me to it. Maybe he was already blocked by someone else? Did you unblock him at any time before you blocked him for 3 years? Mgm|^(talk) 22:17, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

User:Vaoverland - administrator

Thank you for supporting my appointment as an administrator. I appreciate the pat on the back this represents. It felt nice to read the comments during the voting. Please let me know if you see something I should be doing as admin, as I intend to be fairly passive unless it is clear I should do otherwise. Thanks. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 20:06, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

List of schools in the United States

I updated VfU summary on this article with these new points:

• The main concern about the article was its title, but it was originally at the proper title and moved in November, 2004.
• There are many redirects to that page and there is no way to trace them unless the page is undeleted.

Please review your vote, or at least provide a constructive way to adress these concerns, especially the last one. This is a stock message, but I replied to each voter individually on the VfU page. Thanks in advance. Grue 05:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just a thought

I just wanted you to know that I've thought about it and I'm confident in your abilities as an admin. By that I mean were you not an admin, and were nominated for adminship today, I would support you. I've noted such at User:Blankfaze/admin, where I record all of my RFA votes. I want to again apologise for harsh things I have said in the past. Best of luck.

BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Christian Bible

We discussed this cause at the Dutch wikipedia and we came to a consensus as follows:

Only one Bible exists. Jews have the 'tenach', Musulmans have the 'Quran', Christians have the 'Bible'.

'Hebrew Bible' has sometimes been used to indicate the Hebrew part of the Bible. This term does not mean that the 'Hebrwe Bible' is a Bible itself. Jcbos 10:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RFC

I've suggested RFC to Jcbos. JFW | T@lk 23:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Leave me alone

Could you just leave me alone and stop reverting my articles.. I think you are abusing with your admin status. Addoula 02:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see I'm not the only victim of the behaviour of Jayjg. Jcbos 14:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well yes, and we are not alone.. Lots of users are complaning.. He is abusing with his power. I think if he was not an admin, people will qualifie his acts as vandalism. Addoula 18:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jayjig, the link i submit is not a commercial link, neither an advertising one. The only reason you delete it, it is because it is mine, and because the info in the site aren't your pov. If you managed you, and other collaborators, to make Wikipedia a propaganda site, and a one point of view in politics and historicals articles, then at least make room for links from other povs. It is just a link, not an article.. And stop reverting my other articles... You are not showing your power in reverting my articles, you are showing your extremist. Addoula 18:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is a commercial and highly POV site, and of very poor quality. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Behaviour

My edit at Simon bar Kokhba was just to show you what your behaviour is like. When I read your talkpage, I see several people complaining about your revert their edits all of them. It's quite annoying when someone follows you to undo all your edits, so please stop that. I'm a normal Wikipedian, not a vandal. Jcbos 23:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When you first encountered resistance from several editors to your unilateral changes, you should have stopped and reconsidered, and tried to build consensus; that is the Wiki way. Instead you went ahead and re-did your edits, and continued making changes and reverting to them on many other articles, in the face of spontaneous opposition from at least 4 editors. This was not long after you joined Wikipedia, and after you had made only 15 other edits. Furthermore, when people brought dictionary definitions showing your understanding of the usage of the word Bible in English was incorrect, you said they were "ridiculous", and when they mentioned other usages of the word "Bible", you said they were "pure lies". Finally, you used deceptive edit summaries.[2] You may not be a vandal, but there was no way of telling that from your edits and behaviour. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

International law

Yes, I will be working on the article, but need to find time to study your articles and others first. Also, I'm hoping to pull in some real lawyers, not just people like me who play one on wikipedia. :-) --Leifern 19:44, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

RC

Jayjg, I can assure you that there is no consensus of administrators, nor is the issue whether or not there are other administrators willing to ban that Troll. Administrators carry out community made policy. Whether an administrator, or all the administrators, want to ban that troll is not the point, the point is, has the community given them the authority to do that. They have clearly not in this case. Please, follow policy. Mark Richards 21:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)