User talk:Jpgordon

Cleared 20:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC) -- check [1] for history.

Fairest of them all

It says I'm the prettiest member, by the way, [2] your fancy photograph notwithstanding. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It looks like passion, pain in the good sense. I hope the voice sounds as good as it looks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Martin Luther discussion

Josh would you mind having a look at a discussion going on at Talk:Martin_Luther#The_relationship_between_Luther_and_the_Jewish_people_is_the_subject_of_much_controversy. The article currently has a brief summary of a larger article, Martin Luther and Antisemitism, but it appears to me that several editors are trying to either whitewash the contents of the summary, or remove any summary at all, on various grounds which I see as spurious (e.g. we can't quote from works because that might be a copyright violation, or we shouldn't summarize at all because that will increase interest in the sub-article). I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, regarding the Disruptive Apartheid editor, blocks on individual IPs for more than a couple of hours don't do any good. You either need to do the full series of range blocks listed, or not bother. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Marsden is back

As you've seen, User:Marsden is back, using his IP address, 69.138.215.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and apparently spending most of his time reverting those he doesn't like, or who he has been asked to revert. Now he's being even more disruptive; in order to avoid going over the 3RR, he's added a link to a bogus hate site at Self-hating Jew instead, and posting trolling text to a bunch of talk pages (including yours) about "nigger lovers". I'm considering a 1 week block for disruption at this point, unless you think you or someone else should do it first. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Fred Bauder thread

The thread on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration regarding the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Fred_Bauder has long since ceased to be productive. May I suggest a cooling off period with regards to that thread and that any follow up discussions be take to individual talk pages. FuelWagon 02:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Yigal Amir

what about using the word "prisoner" instead of "criminal"? - it sounds better.

form talk page: I don't doubt that "murder" is a correct term in the legal sense, but it seems to me that "assassination" is more to the point. Regrettably, murders happen all the time. But not every murderer gets a page in Wikipedia; the reason that we have a page on Amir is not that he killed somebody, but that he assassinated the Israeli prime minister. Another reason why I think it would be better to replace the current "murdered" in the first sentence by "assassinated" is that the word "murder" carries the connotation of being something wrong and bad, while "assassinated" is a more technical term without moral connotation. I happen to share the view that what Amir did was morally reprehensible (sorry, I can't think of a stronger word at the moment), and while I personally condemn his deed, I think it is not for wikipedia to assign blame or guilt (even when the courts have done so already). "Murder" represents a point of view -- "assassination" does not. There are people in Israel (few, I hope) who consider Amir a hero. I think they might object to the term "murder", but they might accept the more neutral term "assassination". Instead, the part about the court sentence should mention "murder" (assuming that this is indeed the term used in the sentence).

• Please discuss this on Talk:Yigal Amir. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

please refrain from abusing your power of reverting

you reverted my edit from a couple of days ago from the "ronald reagan" article... my edit was accurate and valid

you violated wiki rules when you used the one-click rollback on my edit - clearly my edit was not "simple vandalism"

please read, and in the future, do the right thing:

Reverting

Revert pages quickly. Any user (logged-in or not) can revert a page to an earlier version. Administrators have a faster, automated reversion tool to help them revert vandalism by anonymous editors. When looking at a user's contributions, a link that looks like: [rollback] – appears next to edits that are at the top of the edit history. Clicking on the link reverts to the last edit not authored by that user, with an edit summary of (Reverted edits by X to last version by Y) and marks it as a minor change. Do not use one-click rollback on edits that are not simple vandalism; please use manual rollback with an appropriate edit summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.9 (talk • contribs) 09:08, November 28, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see any edits by you to Ronald Reagan from a couple of days ago. I did revert one addition of unnecessary argumentation to the Reagan article; if that was yours, you are correct: I should have left a better summary when I reverted, which I would have regardless of my "power". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt's RfA

Thanks. WikiThanks.

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Self-hating Jew

Hi Josh. There is some dispute going on at Self-hating Jew, primarily over whether it is a description of a condition or an epithet. Your comments would be most helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Lincolncolor.jpg

• I'm sure the picture is public domain. There is no way a picture of President Lincoln could not be in the public domain. It was of course taken over 140 years ago. -- Voldemort 20:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Sure, but the colorization of it makes it a new derivative work, with its own copyright status." To be honest I really doubt that makes it copyrighted despite what may be suggested on the website. Anyway, I still firmly believe it should remain in Wikipedia. It's great for an encyclopedia. -- Voldemort 21:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

== pls unblock me ==

i have more than 3000 edits, see "user contributions" - i was blocked for no reason. User:Haham hanuka

• I didn't block you (other than for 24 hours a couple weeks ago for a 3RR violation). However, someone else blocked you here, the same way you were permanently banned from the Hebrew wikipedia. Stop abusing Wikipedia. I wouldn't have unblocked you at all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Endorsement of racist comments

Jpgordon,

Endorsing racist comments ("Cry me a river, white boy.") on wikipedia is counterproductive.

-Justforasecond 21:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)