User talk:Jayjg/Archive 7

Regarding Account Suspension.

This query is for the administrator Jayjg.

I may have mistakingly used an explicative in: Talk: Evil. Is this the reason for my user page vandal status?

My number is: 152.163.100.201

--Scroll1 00:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to keep an eye on "contributions" by...

User:Courage - not sure what he/she is up to, but he/she has expressed a desire to fight my extreme "Jewish POV" --Leifern 00:52, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

School VfD's

Hi, I've noticed that you've voted to delete a number of articles on elementary schools and the like. Can I get you to take a moment and refocus you energies? Take a gander at Category:sitcoms, this entire category is filled with articles on un-encyclopaedic trivia and grunge about non-noteworthy TV shows. Surely some Joe Blow Middleschool with an enrollment of 50 in the middle of Sticksville Arizona is more noteworthy of a WP writeup than some dorky TV show? I mean, sure, TV is fun, but its not important. Schools are important, they're the machinery that turn children into adults. These children are going to be maintaining WP long after you and I are dead of old age; why dis them and the people who teach them? If you want a hunting ground for non-notable junk on WP that needs a decent VfD, just start by VfD'ing Gilligan's Island, and go from there. linas 20:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Saw your reply. So what if schools are a "dime a dozen"? So are TV shows. If you literally are comparing the monetary budgets of schools to the budgets of TV shows, I think TV shows are cheaper to produce; TV show budgets run in the millions of dollars. If you are talking about time, then if one million people watch one TV show for one hour, that's a million hours. If you have a shool which enrolls 100 students a year for 10 years, and each student takes 5 hours of classes a day for 200 days a year, that's a million hours of schooling. So in terms of raw hours of a human lifetime devoted to that thing, even teeny-weeny little schools are a match for many TV shows. Schools and teachers have a bigger impact on popular culture than any TV show could ever hope to have. As to confusing "notable" and "important"; if something is important, then it is by definition notable, right? linas 20:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

Are parents important? Is every single one of them notable? Should we have an encylopedia article on each one? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naively, the answers are "yes", "yes", and "yes". There's a huge database of geneological info at the Church of the Later Day Saints. But I'm not really into geneology that much. linas 21:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so given that we were originally talking about VfD's, I assume this was supposed to be a sarcastic or rhetorical question? And that remark about so-called "vanity pages", is that supposed to be a veiled threat to VfD my user page? So what if I'm vain? I don't think that makes my user page a candidate for VfD. linas 21:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK I just saw your post. I don't think that threatening user pages is an appropriate behaviour. That's just plain wrong. I'm so very sorry that you think my user pages are "vanity pages" and are not wikipedia material, but it is my understanding that user pages pages are more or less under the control of the user. Go ahead and VfD them. I think you are way wrong, and have seriously overstepped norms of behaviour. linas 21:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not dumb. You posted the following on my talk page:

And yet, Wikipedia has rules against articles on most individuals, unless they are notable in some way. In fact, articles on people who haven't done anything particularly unusual are considered "vanity".

Don't say that you didn't post this, and that you don't know what I'm talking about. We were talking about deletion policy, and the votes for deletion of various elementary and middle schools. And right in the middle of that conversation, you decide to change the topic to so-called "vanity pages". I have one big giant vanity page. Duhhh. As you have WP admin priveledges, this gives you a variety of power that I do not have, including the ability to delete users, and lord knows what else. I think you are abusing your powers by running around bullying people. This is absolutely the wrong kind of behaviour for a wikipedia admin to engage in. linas 23:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for interjecting, but this is getting too hot, and for no reason. I certainly do not see how Jayjg threatens to delete Linas's page. Jayjg was obviously referring to encyclopedia articles about people, and not to user pages. Oleg Alexandrov 02:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't want this to continue. But I think there's a pretty strong reason. The ostensible topic is about schools. And then, kaboom! this is posted to my talk page:

Are parents important? Is every single one of them notable? Should we have an encyclopedia article on each one? Jayjg (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, so he guesses I'm a parent? Makes sense, why else would I care about grade schools? This is a rhetorical question. Of course parents are important. Of course they are all notable. Yes, everyone deserves a WP page. So why is the question even being asked? We find out why in the next post:

And yet, Wikipedia has rules against articles on most individuals, unless they are notable in some way. In fact, articles on people who haven't done anything particularly unusual are considered "vanity". Jayjg (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, OK, so WP has rules against individual pages. Great. I've got a big individual page. OK, so I'm reading these guidelines about vanity pages. So I dunno, does my page qualify as "vanity"? It makes me ill to even look at these guidelines. Lets see, its written by me... it talks about all the great things I'm thinking about. I think its reasonable, but he's basically implying that I "haven't done anything particularly unusual". Well, that's pretty insulting in itself. Why is the conversation now focused on vanity pages? In what way, exactly is that not an insult coupled to a threat to delete?

Well, now I see strong protestations on my talk page: my page is not a vanity page after all. Well golly. Are we back-pedaling as fast as we can now, or what? Grrrrr. linas 04:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Missing Wikipedians

Jay, please stop reverting the edits on Missing Wikipedians and yes they are missing and you are gonna accept it. I'm getting tired of trying to restore them. -- Mike Garcia | talk 20:00, 19 May 2005

Interested in your comment in Vanunu article

I am having a minor dispute with some members in the Vanunu article. Some posters are very fickle on any editions to it because it is a featured article; at least that is what I think is happening. I have added some information regarding the reasons for his arrest, and his protest against the bombing of the Osiraq nuclear reactor in 1981. There appears to be an arrogant or at least overcatious streak in some posters to erase any new information in this article, even if it is documented and sourced. I always value your imput, so if you have the time, please comment on how to improve the article and my edits there.

Thanks,

Guy Montag 03:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want my opinion, Jayjg, he is pushing POV edits. He has been reverted by a number of respected users. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abif VfD

Shavua Tov, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abif. Thank you. IZAK 06:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DO u USE UR SOCK PUPPET FOR NAUGHTY THINGS YOU FAT FAGGOT?!?!?!?!

Template:Jewish language

You may be interested in the discussion brewing at Template_talk:Jewish_language#Attention-stealing_template. Tomer ^TALK 17:37, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Please check out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Need your opinion Nazi vs, German occupation

Would like your vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/German military occupation of Norway during World War II--Leifern 22:55, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice

Thanks for your help on Talk:Gdansk/Vote a few months ago. Could you look at Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice, Halibutt is changing the results, reasoning that all votes are to be included. Any comments are welcome -- Chris 73 Talk 11:11, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you -- Chris 73 Talk 11:59, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Qaryanism

Just wanted to thank you for pointing me to the VfD on this article (on the Messianic Judaism page - finally got around to looking into it). My quick review that only one of the articles in the quote was deleted so the rest could be relevant was dead wrong in this case. Trödel|talk 14:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD

Hi, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jewish Renegades. Thanks IZAK 15:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jay

Jay, I'm amazingly busy right now, so I can't stay long and argue my case.. But do you really need to attack everthing I post? Surely even you are above that? Belfast is a part of 'Ireland'. I have several sources that place his birth in Dublin, YOu have noted some that place it as Belfast. Both of these places are in 'Ireland', hence my alteration --Irishpunktom\^talk

Jay... Belfast is in Ireland. Simple Geography.
Thanks for the little Jerusalem edit though! Reminds me of a line from the Simpsons. --Irishpunktom\^talk

As well and true as you may believe that to be, fact is I never said he was born in Dublin, I said he was born in Ireland, which you described as "an error", which surely even you can admit was wrong.. or can you? --Irishpunktom\^talk

Kibbutz

Hello! I noticed you have already reverted an edit on article kibbutz, so I think you would probably want to know that someone by the IP of 67.170.56.52 just vandalized the article, something I actually never had seen before here in Wikipedia.

Keep up the good work!

Porcher 23:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC re Zivinbudas

I have started an RfC against Zivinbudas for his behavior on Indo-European languages. Please feel free to comment! --Angr/_comhrá 22:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yehudei sheqolenique

Yehudei sheqolenique, ever heard of them? Can you look at and verify the article at all? Thanks IZAK 10:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jay? Why does this article still exist? The VfD was opened May 19, which as I read it was 11 days ago. The VfD has not been even mildly contentious, and, given that the article is sheer (and rather ridiculous) fantasy, I see no reason why the the VfD wasn't changed to a speedy delete. In fact, the last vote cast on was on May 24, which was, itself, almost a week ago. Meanwhile the article has been mirrored to a hundred other sites, and will probably soon enter the lore of the likes of Jew Watch (who will probably use the article's deletion as proof of the existence of the "Yehudei Sheqolenique", and characterize the article's deletion as proof of Khazars trying to erase all non-Ashkenazim, blahblahblah...) Tomer ^TALK 18:12, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well, for now at least, I've removed it from List of Jewish history topics#Y. Incidentally, I'm surprised nobody has asked User:Charles Matthews whence he got the information that led him to create this article in the first place... Tomer ^TALK 19:03, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ah. You are, of course, correct. I neglected to take the time to look at the times, and just saw that it'd been moved from its original at Sample yehudei sheqolenique by Charles_Matthews. Tomer ^TALK 19:25, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sock puppet/Proposal

Hi there! I've reworded this a bit per everyone's comment, and would like to get support to make this a guideline and allow it to be used. Could you please indicate if you agree? Note that it applies to any user accounts that become perma-blocked, including the edit warrers or vote stackers you mention. If this isn't clear enough, please edit the proposal. Thanks, R adiant _* 12:27, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

List of assassinations, massacres, and terrorist incidents

Rickyrab has just created List of assassinations, massacres, and terrorist incidents which repeats existing articles. - Tεx τ urε 14:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler the meat eating vegetarian

Hi Jay, thanks for letting me know. Cheers, --Silversmith 16:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User 192.117.107.224

This guy keeps adding simpletoremember to every Jewish webpage, deleting references that it an Orthodox site, and giving his links misleading names (his anti-Reform link under Reform Judasim is labeled "Historical Overview of Reform Judaism, which I guess it is, sort of, but in a very POV way), and he has been reverted many times. He doesn't reply to his talk page. Any suggestions on how to stop this annoyance? --Goodoldpolonius2 16:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah

Thanks for adding that on the Jonah page. I do recall hearing that theory before, however, and a quick check found some online presence, eg., this 1995 article from Judaism ( http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_n3_v44/ai_17422984 ). Lectiodifficilior 16:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Hale

I've used up my reverts for the day on Matthew F. Hale. Cheers, -Willmcw 17:05, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. And yes, I'm following the MacDonald edits. Cheers, -Willmcw 17:28, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Germany page

Hi Jayjg. Of course I will be participating again on the Germany page. I might restrict my actions to the weekend, though, because I work now (before, I was a student, or looking for a job). When I posted on Talk:Germany that I was leaving the page, I was hoping that it would be a wake-up call to those who still believe we should do our best to improve wikipedia. So I'll gladly join the Germany community again. Also: Thank you for contacting me. Luis Rib 18:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

David Gerard

This jerk abused his authority, violated Wikipedia policy by using his authority to clear away his lackey's opponents in the middle of a content dispute, and deliberately lied about me claiming that I am a sockpuppet. I stand by my statements. ElKabong

Regardless of what you believe has happened, you have a simple choice to make; stop making attacks, and continue to contribute to Wikipedia, or continue making attacks, and inevitably be banned from Wikipedia. The decision is yours. Jayjg (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

In other words, "stop speaking truth to power." You know what? That's a pretty shitty thing to say. I've had to put up with attacks and smears and lies by his cronies, I've had to deal with the fact that he PERSONALLY lied and made crap up to justify banning not just me but someone else as well, and I'm not supposed to speak my side? Bullshit. He hasn't operated in good faith at any point in this. ElKabong

Nazi occupation of Norway

It appears that we are approaching a consensus on the title for this article, but User:Courage has, once again, unilaterally moved the article to "German occupation of Norway." I think you need special rights to revert this, and I'm not sure if he's violated other policies. Can you please attend to it? Thanks. --Leifern 20:13, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Jayjg, after we reached consensus on an new name for German military occupation of Norway/Nazi occupation of Norway in the form of "Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany", the discussion on that page was closed. Can you make the title change? Please notice that the dispute on the content is still in place, so that would be the next issue to address. Best, gidonb 10:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your help with issue! I think we reached a good compromise. Best, gidonb 03:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jguk

I am filing an ArbCom complaint. If you think you have cause to get involved/something to add, go here [1] Slrubenstein | Talk 14:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Pollard

There is an edit war please take a look Jonathan Pollard.

Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel

Good day Jay: Please contact User:Humus sapiens who wishes to start a Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel See his request below. Thanks IZAK 07:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IZAK (and everyone else here :), Do you think it's time to create Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel similar to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/India, Wikipedia:Wikiportal/New Zealand and other Category:Wikiportals? I'm writing this here because it was you who made those wonderful templates and we don't have a portal yet where we could communicate. What do you think? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Humus, it's only me here, but I will pass your message on to "everyone". Yes, your suggestion is excellent, it is certainly time for what you describe, but I have no experience with Wikipedia portals, and if you know how, go ahead and start an Israel portal and I am sure editors of Israel-related articles will support you and join in the effort/s. Behatzlachah. IZAK 05:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of my project

Jay, I'm working on the article re: Lawrence Kepecs. I took some of the information that was there, found many more sources and added a lot of new information to it as well. It took me and others a long time to gather the info that was recovered. Can you please let us finish our work, as I cannot accomplish anything when you keep deleting it. It was suggested that the page be revised and reposted. If there is anything I can do to make this article more suitable to your liking, please let me know. Thanks --Cantors 20:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem last time was that sources were not quoted properly. Many people have taken this work under their auspices, working long hours researching and composing a well thought out article about this individual. A lot more information was gathered since the old article appeared. It has taken much time, money, and effort to find out additional material. All sources are clearly listed in the article. The article is still in its developmental stages, and I request that just as you would want courtesy given to research that you have done, that likewise courtesy be given to the other researchers of this piece. Thank you.--Senator 20:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tomer had suggested to revise the article and add reliable sources.--Merlinzor 20:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am disturbed that this is being characterized by User:Cantors as "[his] project". The continued, albeit increasingly sophisticated, sock puppetry is also disturbing. I don't care if it's one person or 20 people, the article, as it was, was HORRIBLY flawed. By the end of the discussion that went into the VfD, I was actually almost convinced that possibly Cantor Képecs might be sufficiently noteworthy to warrant a WP article, but COMPLETELY convinced that the sockpuppetmaster Merlin/zor et al. are too compromised in honesty to be trusted with writing it. Concerning the effort that it is claimed has gone into compiling a "better" article, I have to question the motivation behind it. As I said, I was almost convinced that possibly this fellow might warrant an article. Spending long hours and spending a great deal of money in composing an article is inconsistent with that judgment. That said, I'm not the only with a voice on the matter.

Now on the question of what the "problem last time was". It was not that sources were not quoted properly as Sockpuppet Senator says. It's interesting, but not even remotely surprising, that Sockpuppet Merlinzor shares Sockpuppet Senators mistaken notion on this point, and that they should think to characterize it as my suggestion. In fact, I don't recall that any sources were actually quoted in the article. What I do recall is that a bunch of newspaper clippings were scanned and, in violation of copyright law, inserted into the article...and that, in a horribly slipshod fashion. As for reliable sources, I think a better characterization of what I was looking for would be noteworthy reliable sources. The Newtown Bee does not qualify. Now, for what I actually recommended, it was that the sockpuppetmaster be given the content of the article and its talk page after the article's deletion. Whatever s/he does with it is of little concern to me, but I will be just as insistent that any future article dwelling on this individual meet the standards of relevance and accuracy as I would insist upon for any other WP article. Tomer ^TALK 23:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

And so it continues...[2] Tomer ^TALK 23:02, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Linking dates in references

Because it looks the same. [[17 october]] [[2003]] renders as 17 october 2003 wheras [[October 17]] [[2003]] renders as October 17 2003. rgds, Rich Farmbrough 23:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be a lttle clearer. I make no effort to keep the original order becasue it doesn't matter. I am using search and replace to make the change. However, now you mention it there is one advantage, from time to time I have to revert a change, which is simple, more infrequently I part revert, manually. This would be easier with the same order, so thanks, I'll probably do that. Rich Farmbrough 23:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's not much clearer; why is it easier?

Because in the case in point I would edit "[[May 31]]" to "May 31" if I decided a change was wrong - less keystrokes and less chance of error. (E.G. date in a link, a direct quote, a template which imposes wikifying of dates, a URL.) (Except of course that in the case in point the date order wsn't changed anyway)

Also, don't you think the original authors had something in mind when they used that order?

Not in the vast majority of cases. Any more than they have something in mind when they say Anemia or Anaemia. When the layout is more important than the content, then the change should not be made, as in the examples above, or a proper name. When the idea is to refer to a period of time, then it is good that the users can see it in their desired format.

And finally, since the articles inevitably linked to say October 17, why not just link there? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neither format will be a redirect, so what does it matter? Rich Farmbrough 23:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it's disconcerting, since it's invisible, still never mind, with the changes I talked about I'll be doing what you want anyway. The example of Anemia/Aneamia was chosen to illustrate just such a point, generally it would be left alone, but in the article Anemia it's been regularised - it's not a big deal. Cheers, Rich Farmbrough 08:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

anti-zionism photo

I haven't seen a disucssion of the copyright status of the photo in Zionism. The only info I saw was in regard to the original poster and the photos relevance to the article. If there's a copyvio, then the photo should be deleted from Wikipedia, not just the article. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:11, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Attack of the Képecs Socks

Oh, believe me, I noticed. Email me. Tomer ^TALK 23:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

[3]

I may have stepped slightly over the line... Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#Eliezer_Kepecs Tomer ^TALK 23:33, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think it was on Talk:Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs that the grand puppetteer said he wanted to create articles for all 141 of the most highly and mightily reverend cantors, but I don't know how to get ahold of the deleted discussion. Any pointers? Tomer ^TALK

Hmmm. As I recall tho, the puppetteer responded that was the eventual idea. Tomer ^TALK 20:00, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Oh well. I wonder if I should go through and try to find everywhere I've claimed he did then. Tomer ^TALK 20:05, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Unclean vs unfit

Of course "unclean" is an imprecise term. But then the record is a bit confusing. On the one hand, the Gemara states that saying "I won't eat pig because it is abhorrent to me" is insufficient, as we keep mitzvos because HKBH tells us no and not because of personal preference. Still, the Torah describes many species as a toevah, which DOES connotate "abhorrent". The English term in general use seems to be "unclean", pretty much like tum'ah is translated as "unclean" while in fact it is a non-hygienic concept.

I think trying to have the pages renamed is going to meet with resistance. JFW | T@lk 10:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make sense to clean up the text?

I agree that the text should state unequivocally that "cleanliness" is not the real motivation behind either kashrut or tum'ah, but that they reflect spiritual realities. JFW | T@lk 14:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neofascism_and_religion

I am proposing a redirect from several endlessly contentious pages to a new page: Neofascism_and_religion. The three pages directly affected are Islamofascism, Islamic fascism, and Christian fascism. Any help you can give would be appreciated. :-) I am also posting this to several other folks. --Cberlet 17:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clementine Room article

I moved the article to Clementine Hall simply because sala ought not to be translated as "room" and added a section on the artistic program of the interior. Take a look if time allows. in retrospect, I regret not having asked first, but I hope none of the changes will be objectionable. Sumergocognito 06:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfU

Nice work on VfU (to you and the other user identifying sock puppets). If you get a chance can you review my entry for Pointless Waste of Time on VfU? I could use a check. - Tεx τ urε 17:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. I just wanted a sanity check of my own actions. Thanks! - Tεx τ urε 18:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical Patriarch Dynasties

Hi Jay: Can you help tidy up Biblical Patriarch Dynasties please? Thanks. IZAK 19:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gayjig

Is this person trying to impersonate you? If so, it could be eligable for a block. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admins abusing their authority and other fun things

You might want to look at your butt-buddy admin friends who continually abuse their authority and lie about me, then walk around slapping in bans and lying some more while I'm unable to respond. Note the latest nonsense from SlimVirgin over on KaintheScion's page (where I finally just put in BOTH versions before the power-mad freak reverted it back yet again). ElKabong

ZScout just pulled his lying bullshit again on KtS's page. I'd revert it but the lying bastards would use it as an excuse to ban me. Here we go again. ElKabong

One: I am not an admin.

Two: If you claim not to be KaintheScion, then why are you editing that persons user page.

Three: Your personal attacks are really getting on everyones nerves

Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to relax, ElKabong. El_C 23:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that ElKabong has been editing KaintheScion's page because the accusation is that ElKabong is using KaintheScion as a sock puppet. This is a rather large insult for Zscout and his fellows to be making.

I think ElKabong is going overboard with some of the personal attacks, but his frustration also seems quite warranted, as there are a large number of admins and editors who have been dealing in very bad faith against him/her. ZScout, your constant reversions qualify. Enviroknot

It's obvious, but at the risk of laboring the point, Elkabong is KaintheScion and Enviroknot; he e-mailed me and the mailing list using Enviroknot in his e-mail address, at that point calling himself Cranston Snord. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:46, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, I will point out to you that making false accusations is evidence that you are acting in bad faith. I am not a sock puppet of any sort, but after seeing your email and your posts here I am not at all surprised that you have gained these sort of adversarial responses from ElKabong. Enviroknot

See my note at User:Firebug's talk page. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My post: Hey, I saw a notice from this user on Jayjg's talk page: User:Enviroknot. There has only been three edits so for (as I write this) One edit at Dhimmi, Dhimmi talk page and at Jayjg's page. From his edit style, he seems to be a toned down version of ElKabong, but I cannot be very certian. I would keep on the lookout if I was you. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eighteenth century persecution of Polish Jews

Hello,

Mind weighing in at Talk:Abraham ben Abraham (or at the article for that matter)? I'd appreciate your input. Thanks. HKT 01:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admins abusing their authority and other fun things

You might want to look at your butt-buddy admin friends who continually abuse their authority and lie about me, then walk around slapping in bans and lying some more while I'm unable to respond. Note the latest nonsense from SlimVirgin over on KaintheScion's page (where I finally just put in BOTH versions before the power-mad freak reverted it back yet again). ElKabong

eifiles.cn links

The same whacko links are being inserted elsewhere by Ryz05 (talk • contribs). In fact, I'm guessing the "two" (Ryz05 and 24.218.47.118 (talk • contribs)) are one and the same. You'll notice that this user (these users?) are doing very little else besides inserting this crap all over the place. Tomer ^TALK 21:39, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Those are not "crap" articles, but relevant links to a site with much research and support. The website may look bland, but it really contains interesting information. 21:06, May 26, 2005 (UTC-5)

Hrmm

Well, SirGeneral (talk • contribs) doesn't appear to be on board with the puppetteer, but in fairness, his paltry edit record should probably be pointed out in similar fashion to those of the various socks. ...if it's not, you can be sure the High and Mighty Puppetteer will cry foul... Tomer ^TALK 21:59, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, for someone as "new" as User:SirGeneral, s/he certainly is familiar with the workings of WP... Interesting... Tomer ^TALK 22:40, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Another one

Hey, this person vandalized my user page: JiangsMonkeyUncle. He has been wanred a few times, and has said this: "I vandalized Jiang. Why? Because he is a communist freak from mainland China". Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One more

I made external links (articles from eifiles.cn) to the "Hebrew" and the "Garden of Eden" article, but you deleted them and said they were irrelevant. Just how irrevelant? Because they seemed perfectly fine to me. 20:56, May 26 2005 (UTC-5)

Raphael Rooms article

You were kind enough to work on the Clementine Hall article the other day so I was hoping you'd be willing to look over what I wrote for the Raphael Rooms. If you have the time and inclination, by all means take a look.Sumergocognito 07:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about merge them all into Apostolic Palace? By itself the Clementine Hall deserves fifty words (at the very most) and a good perspective pic (not what's there now). Raphael Rooms deserves a fuller treatment because it's Raphael's opus magnum but it would be fine to merge them all into one sectioned file. What needs most of all to be merged is School of Athens into Raphael Rooms because the former is just the most famous painting in the latter. Thx- Sumergocognito 06:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Etitis butchering your words

You should be advised that in Dhimmi, Mel Etitis has fraudulently "removed personal attacks" from your statement twice now. He is in violation of Wikipedia: Remove Personal Attacks which states that It's important not to change the overall meaning. Mel Etitis does not care about this. In fact, he prides himself on deliberately "removing personal attacks" in a way as to completely change the meaning of what has been said.

More Sam Spade

Note that he is now using evidence which predates my adminship (the same evidence he used against me on my RFA), to claim I am a rogue admin. Unsurprsingly, the page is linked to his <big> signature,. [4] Now, anywhere he goes, he besmirches me, a new step for him. But I am concerned of the impact this would have on new users and my abilities to preform my admin duties (again, considering that his allegations are unrelated to any admin actions, or existence, on my part). Please speak up against this harrasment. El_C 22:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Israeli Conflict edit

Could you please check if my recent edit is NPOV? I do not know if it is possible to state the opinion of one man, as the opinion of a "some" Palestinian Arab Christians, or just qualify it as his opinion. What do you think is both more linguistically sound and npov, the edit you reverted too or the edit I inserted afterwards? Your input is always appreciated.

Guy Montag 05:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whew good. :)

Guy Montag 06:10, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yuber's edit

I respect people who have a strong pov on subjects, but I do not respect those who cannot cooperate with others. I will continue to make sure that his edits are monitored, but if he doesn't cooperate in the future or respond to reason through discussion and private messages, I suggest using some other official means to make him understand that this isn't a soapbox and he cannot have unileteral decisions imposed on others without cooperation. Until that time, if you are in trouble because of a 3RR limit, you can ask for my help. You've proven to be a prudent editor many times over.

Absolutely, his tactics are abominable and against both the spirit and word of wikipedia policy. I will back you up on this fully. If you need to report him for arbitration or whatever I too will support you. I don't know how to make someone to come to their senses, but he so consistently proving that he is not fit for this project. 99% of things he inserts are changed, erased or reverted within 20 minutes. We might have to start treating him as a vandal sooner or later. Guy Montag 05:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can count on my support in making WP NPOV. FYI, now we have a forum for such announcements: WP:WNBI. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that I have very low regard for you in relation to the false accusations you have made that I am a sockpuppet.

However, I feel obliged to point out to you that Yuber is starting yet another revert war on an Islamic topic. His target today seems to be Dhimmitude, I have not yet been able to spend time fact-checking the rest of his recent edits.Enviroknot 21:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The RFAr against KaintheScion/Elkabong accuses me of being a sockpuppet, and you signed it. This is what I object to.

Also be advised, Yuber has falsely accused me of violation of 3RR now.Enviroknot 21:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Childlike mentality VfD

I don't want to "campaign" for this article, but I think that through working with User:Cwolfsheep, the article has been sufficiently altered (by which I mean pared away of its POV), to warrant a reconsideration of your vote (and possibly the speedy removal of the VfD tag). Please review the article, as well as the discussion on the VfD page and on Cwolfsheep's user and talk pages in the process. Tomer ^TALK 23:17, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

If this is done, it would probably be a good idea to at least include a mention of the VfD on the Talk page. Tomer ^TALK 23:30, May 29, 2005 (UTC)