Welcome to my talk page! Please be patient - I'm new here.
Talk Page Policy: Please don't leave abusive, slanderous, bogus or unfair comments - if you do I'll remove them. But if you want to leave a friendly word of encouragement or needed advice, then be my guest. Thanks!
If you want to discuss a Wikipedia entry I'm contributing to you're best off leaving comments in the Discussion pages of the entry - I think our work as writers and editors should speak for itself, with the help of the Discussion pages.
I have a real life which is sometimes very busy, so feel free to use email if you need to contact me with any urgency.
Have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility, disruptive editing, and stalking-like behavior from Isarig. What do you think? Abu ali 20:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Y'know, I think you picked a lousy page to begin with on WP -I say this from experience. I am attempting to make yours less bad, even if I disagree with you. Cheers <<-armon->> 03:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jgui. Please read WP:STALK. So far you've only edited 3 articles, in each following Armon there and opposing him. Jayjg (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It appeared to me that you were following Armon to Juan Cole solely to oppose him. If you haven't been stalking, then I apologize. Please don't be intimidated, and please enjoy your time editing at Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed by looking at your contributions that you are new here or at least newly registered. It used to be the case in WP that newbies were offered a welcome (with certain exceptions of course.) I remembered getting a welcome note from User:Angela after my first edit. It was a template but still, it was nice to see it. Seeing the above comments, I see that you haven't gotten exactly a rousing welcome: Let's see, an accusation of stalking from a contributor who definitely should know better and a somewhat garbled remark by another "I am trying to make yours less bad", whatever that means.
Anyway welcome. -- CSTAR 20:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
:Oh come on CSTAR,
Abu ali's invitation for Jugi to come beat up on Isarig certainly deserves a mention in your list above. That was rather collegial, don't you think?
Elizmr 19:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Jugi--I apologize for the fact that I missed comments you have made in the sheer volume of what is posted there. It was not productive for me to have said you didn't supply the quotes when I asked. I was mistaken becuase the first time I had asked you had not supplied them, and I never saw that later you did supply them. I can totally see that it would be very upsetting to have done something and then be told that you had not. So please accept my apologies. Elizmr 02:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see my (possibly unsatisfactory) response to your request at A.N.S.W.E.R.#Ramsey Clark?. - Jmabel | Talk 03:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi I once had an exchange with an editor Elizmr, going over my contributions list I thought it was odd that my posts on her talk page where no longer there. Apparently she closed that account but finding a link to her archives I found that the person requesting the deletion was using the name User:Quaiqu. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Elizmr/archive1&diff=prev&oldid=114402748
When I went to that new page I see that you have a request for Arbitration going on with her over the MEMRI page. I noticed in the archives that she had an extensive history in that page under the name Elizmr. Here is a link to the text of the archived page which shows the Elizmr was engaged in heavy disputes on the MEMRI page since March of 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Elizmr/archive1&oldid=105134936
I don't know why the name change occurred but if it was solely to drop her contensious past I think that's a violation of the culture of wikipedia.-- Wowaconia 18:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the ongoing edit war on House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which you are involved, I'd like to remind you of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule's prohibition of reverting as an editing technique. Please note that "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." I would request that you bear this in mind and use the article discussion page or dispute resolution to resolve your dispute. -- ChrisO 15:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do not lable my actions "vandalism" when they are not. Editors have been blocked for such uncivility in the past. Isarig 23:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou for your NPOV edits on this article. I hope you continue to keep up the good work. Suicup 16:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Also, seeing it hasnt been done already: Welcome!
Hello, Jgui~enwiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Suicup 16:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You've passed 3RR on memeri and I've addressed the issues on talk. It would be a good idea to self-revert. <<-armon->> 00:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I've tried my best but even hacking down your revisions to bare bones Armon still persists in his rampant reverting. Hell, I'm fairly sure he just notched beyond the 3RR in 24 hours, but either way, I'm done with it. If he wants to have his very own WP article to guard, he is welcome to it. Narson 13:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Based on my investigation of a complaint at WP:AE, I am applying the general sanctions enacted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles as follows:
I have requested mediation on the Jewish lobby article. If you wish to participate, please sign up here. Jayjg (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
(copied from G-Dett's user page to keep discussion in one place)
G-dett:
You made a statement on the NOR noticeboard that surprised me, stating that you thought the OED quote I found does not belong on the JL page. I expected that statement from the POV-pushers, but I don't consider you to be one of them, so I am curious why you said that. It strikes me (and it was long argued by Jayjg back when he thought that no such usage existed) that a usage in a dictionary is a clear indication of a reliable and accepted usage of a term or phrase. And it also seems to me that a dictionary can be used without reservation or arguments about primary/secondary/tertiary sources.
Can I ask whether you read this explanation that I added:
It is not, as I was accused, that the term is used randomly somewhere in the dictionary, of course; it is the fact that it is used as an example of a special-interest lobby in a definition of a special-interest lobby; thereby making plain that it is considered by OED in the example they cite as a straightforward adjective phrase to describe a special-interest lobby: it was used to simply mean "lobby for and by Jewish members" just as "alcohol lobby" was used to simply mean "lobby by the alcohol industry".
It is this straightforward "descriptive" usage that Jayjg is blocking with his misapplication of WP:NEO. When this usage is incorrectly blocked by WP editors we are left with a WP article that is slanted and inaccurate that denies the non-pejorative way it has been actually used for many decades (and is still being used in Israeli media and elsewhere) and we are left with the only usage Jayjg will allow: as an antisemitic slur. We are left, in effect, with an article that is promoting Jayjg's view of the meaning of "Jewish lobby" (as an antisemitic slur based on his OR that the term is a "neologism") and nothing else, when it is clear to any scholar that it has historically been used in this other way. We have found scholarly references (OED and others) to back up that usage - but in a Catch22 we are not allowed to use them - can you see the source of the frustration caused by this?
I have no problem with restricting cited text to secondary/tertiary sources in the article as per the normal (non-NEO) WP policy - I agree with you that it will lead to a better article. But I absolutely oppose Jayjg's "law" that the term must only be discussed as an antisemitic term, since clearly that is simply Jayjg's fantasy world (which is once again clear from reading the OED definition of "lobby").
So can I ask why you stated you are opposed to using the OED quote? Is it that you think the quote is usable but poorly worded and can be improved? Is it a technical issue having to do with including dictionary examples? Do you question that this article should even include its descriptive usage as it has been and continues to be used for decades in a non-pejorative fashion? Or more likely something else I haven't considered? I'll check back here on your user page unless you prefer to discuss this somewhere else. Thank you, Jgui ( talk) 07:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Jgui ( talk) 16:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
PS, if you have the time and haven't already seen it, here's Jayjg's current version of the JL page HERE; here's the version that included its Descriptive usage and Antisemitic Criticism HERE. Jgui ( talk) 07:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It has been more than a month since mediation was requested so I am asking everyone to re-confirm their intent to participate in the mediation. Please stop by and indicate whether or not you still wish to be involved. Thanks. Shell babelfish 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I took a brief look, and I must admit that it wasn't as easy as I thought to find many "neutral" usages of the term by noteables. I found a few newspapers using it and so on, but not much of much use I believe. Actually I found one example where a major newspaper had changed a title from "... Jewish Lobby" to "Israel-Lobby". On fairly notable source is this [1] from [dagbladet] "Critizism of Israel - State or regime" where the jewish professor Morten Levin defends [Jostein Gaarder], critizises the excessive use of antisemitism-accusations against critics of Israel, and draws a paralell to how M&W were condemned by "the jewish lobby". He seems to use the terms interchangibly. (Note: Levin also notes that he is regarded a "self hating jew" by the jewish environment in Norway). I know Jayjg will say he is not notable enough, but anyway.
I found some other interesting things here however: [2] referring to this review of M&W : [3] The NYT reviewer refers to the "jewish" lobby all the time when talking about M&W's book on the Israel Lobby. This has probably been discussed before, but I just wanted to mention it in case you hadn't seen it. I will contact you if I stumble over more. This is only based on a few minutes in front of the computer. pertn ( talk) 11:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I've created a new mediation page so that we can try this again, hopefully with a better result. If you wish to join, please sign here. Jayjg (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:BLP is really, really serious stuff. If you disagree with a WP:BLP removal, then bring it up on the article's Talk: page. Do not simply restore the material via a revert. Re-read Wikipedia:BLP#Restoring_deleted_content in particular. Jayjg (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Greetings Jgui! Sorry for not going to the talk page first. I've stated why I removed the passage you added at Talk:Gaza. -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 02:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Nice to meet you, and thank you very much! Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 15:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me repeat my thanks for your spirited and cogent intervention at the RFA. I feel guilty that, so far, you have put more effort into my defence than I have myself. So, thank you. Far from being able to do a better job than you are doing, I had actually forgotten the extent of Gainline's vandalism in his previous incarnations, and you have summed up my case very well. I have asked the arbitrators to say whether they are pleased with the way the arbitration is proceeding, as I know from experience (and as no doubt you now also know) that trying to thrash things out with Falcon9x5 and Gainline in discussion can be very frustrating, not to mention time-consuming. Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 16:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hiya. Just a quick note, I've asked LP to contribute to the discussion twice, as has another user, just for context about my (and perhaps others) opinion on LP's attitude to the RfA process. Thanks! Fin © ™ 18:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, but I really dont need the help, and AGK's talk page is not exactly the proper forum for you and Jaakobou to be arguing. There are many more important things to do, things that I am now restricted from doing, such as dealing with straightforward BLP vios or fixing badly slanted articles or any number of other things that would be a more valuable use of your time rather than continue over there. Happy editing, nableezy - 22:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jgui, well we had this discussion awhile ago, the reasoning was that it was impossible to determine how many Hamas fighters had actually participated; likewise with IDF. So to put the two sides' total strength "(total)" emphasized on the Israeli side. The Noung source mentioned only the number of IDF ground troops who entered Gaza, which ignores the air campaign (from what bases did Israeli fly their sorties or berth their naval vessels, surely they were involved). Also we can't look only at activities in Gaza, as some editors have insisted on defining the Gaza war as a conflict that took place in Gaza and Israel. This does suggest we are right to include both sides' total strength, if Israel proper was under attack. So I reverted again from "20,000", it is ridiculous to suggest that Israel and Gaza's strength were equal in this war. I would also support listing the number of IDF tanks and fighter aircraft, as well. This is relevant information. Cheers, RomaC ( talk) 02:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Let me guess. You're voting for Keating. Me, I don't even live in the state. 166.137.138.190 ( talk) 20:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I was not referring to you when I created the subsection on the Barack Obama article and I mentioned edit-warring, because you did not revert me, I reverted you, so it would be imposible for me to accuse you of edit-warring. During the discussion at the article talkpage I thought you were the editor who reverted me but after checking the article history again I verified that the editor who reverted me was not you. So it was all a misunderstanding. Please see this also. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 05:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anwar al-Aulaqi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salon ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello Jgui, I've replied to your message on my talk page. — RCraig09 ( talk) 16:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.
Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Jgui. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Jgui~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.
Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation
00:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) ( talk)
14:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Jgui~enwiki. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to my talk page! Please be patient - I'm new here.
Talk Page Policy: Please don't leave abusive, slanderous, bogus or unfair comments - if you do I'll remove them. But if you want to leave a friendly word of encouragement or needed advice, then be my guest. Thanks!
If you want to discuss a Wikipedia entry I'm contributing to you're best off leaving comments in the Discussion pages of the entry - I think our work as writers and editors should speak for itself, with the help of the Discussion pages.
I have a real life which is sometimes very busy, so feel free to use email if you need to contact me with any urgency.
Have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility, disruptive editing, and stalking-like behavior from Isarig. What do you think? Abu ali 20:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Y'know, I think you picked a lousy page to begin with on WP -I say this from experience. I am attempting to make yours less bad, even if I disagree with you. Cheers <<-armon->> 03:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jgui. Please read WP:STALK. So far you've only edited 3 articles, in each following Armon there and opposing him. Jayjg (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It appeared to me that you were following Armon to Juan Cole solely to oppose him. If you haven't been stalking, then I apologize. Please don't be intimidated, and please enjoy your time editing at Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed by looking at your contributions that you are new here or at least newly registered. It used to be the case in WP that newbies were offered a welcome (with certain exceptions of course.) I remembered getting a welcome note from User:Angela after my first edit. It was a template but still, it was nice to see it. Seeing the above comments, I see that you haven't gotten exactly a rousing welcome: Let's see, an accusation of stalking from a contributor who definitely should know better and a somewhat garbled remark by another "I am trying to make yours less bad", whatever that means.
Anyway welcome. -- CSTAR 20:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
:Oh come on CSTAR,
Abu ali's invitation for Jugi to come beat up on Isarig certainly deserves a mention in your list above. That was rather collegial, don't you think?
Elizmr 19:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Jugi--I apologize for the fact that I missed comments you have made in the sheer volume of what is posted there. It was not productive for me to have said you didn't supply the quotes when I asked. I was mistaken becuase the first time I had asked you had not supplied them, and I never saw that later you did supply them. I can totally see that it would be very upsetting to have done something and then be told that you had not. So please accept my apologies. Elizmr 02:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see my (possibly unsatisfactory) response to your request at A.N.S.W.E.R.#Ramsey Clark?. - Jmabel | Talk 03:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi I once had an exchange with an editor Elizmr, going over my contributions list I thought it was odd that my posts on her talk page where no longer there. Apparently she closed that account but finding a link to her archives I found that the person requesting the deletion was using the name User:Quaiqu. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Elizmr/archive1&diff=prev&oldid=114402748
When I went to that new page I see that you have a request for Arbitration going on with her over the MEMRI page. I noticed in the archives that she had an extensive history in that page under the name Elizmr. Here is a link to the text of the archived page which shows the Elizmr was engaged in heavy disputes on the MEMRI page since March of 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Elizmr/archive1&oldid=105134936
I don't know why the name change occurred but if it was solely to drop her contensious past I think that's a violation of the culture of wikipedia.-- Wowaconia 18:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the ongoing edit war on House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which you are involved, I'd like to remind you of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule's prohibition of reverting as an editing technique. Please note that "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." I would request that you bear this in mind and use the article discussion page or dispute resolution to resolve your dispute. -- ChrisO 15:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do not lable my actions "vandalism" when they are not. Editors have been blocked for such uncivility in the past. Isarig 23:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou for your NPOV edits on this article. I hope you continue to keep up the good work. Suicup 16:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Also, seeing it hasnt been done already: Welcome!
Hello, Jgui~enwiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Suicup 16:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You've passed 3RR on memeri and I've addressed the issues on talk. It would be a good idea to self-revert. <<-armon->> 00:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I've tried my best but even hacking down your revisions to bare bones Armon still persists in his rampant reverting. Hell, I'm fairly sure he just notched beyond the 3RR in 24 hours, but either way, I'm done with it. If he wants to have his very own WP article to guard, he is welcome to it. Narson 13:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Based on my investigation of a complaint at WP:AE, I am applying the general sanctions enacted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles as follows:
I have requested mediation on the Jewish lobby article. If you wish to participate, please sign up here. Jayjg (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
(copied from G-Dett's user page to keep discussion in one place)
G-dett:
You made a statement on the NOR noticeboard that surprised me, stating that you thought the OED quote I found does not belong on the JL page. I expected that statement from the POV-pushers, but I don't consider you to be one of them, so I am curious why you said that. It strikes me (and it was long argued by Jayjg back when he thought that no such usage existed) that a usage in a dictionary is a clear indication of a reliable and accepted usage of a term or phrase. And it also seems to me that a dictionary can be used without reservation or arguments about primary/secondary/tertiary sources.
Can I ask whether you read this explanation that I added:
It is not, as I was accused, that the term is used randomly somewhere in the dictionary, of course; it is the fact that it is used as an example of a special-interest lobby in a definition of a special-interest lobby; thereby making plain that it is considered by OED in the example they cite as a straightforward adjective phrase to describe a special-interest lobby: it was used to simply mean "lobby for and by Jewish members" just as "alcohol lobby" was used to simply mean "lobby by the alcohol industry".
It is this straightforward "descriptive" usage that Jayjg is blocking with his misapplication of WP:NEO. When this usage is incorrectly blocked by WP editors we are left with a WP article that is slanted and inaccurate that denies the non-pejorative way it has been actually used for many decades (and is still being used in Israeli media and elsewhere) and we are left with the only usage Jayjg will allow: as an antisemitic slur. We are left, in effect, with an article that is promoting Jayjg's view of the meaning of "Jewish lobby" (as an antisemitic slur based on his OR that the term is a "neologism") and nothing else, when it is clear to any scholar that it has historically been used in this other way. We have found scholarly references (OED and others) to back up that usage - but in a Catch22 we are not allowed to use them - can you see the source of the frustration caused by this?
I have no problem with restricting cited text to secondary/tertiary sources in the article as per the normal (non-NEO) WP policy - I agree with you that it will lead to a better article. But I absolutely oppose Jayjg's "law" that the term must only be discussed as an antisemitic term, since clearly that is simply Jayjg's fantasy world (which is once again clear from reading the OED definition of "lobby").
So can I ask why you stated you are opposed to using the OED quote? Is it that you think the quote is usable but poorly worded and can be improved? Is it a technical issue having to do with including dictionary examples? Do you question that this article should even include its descriptive usage as it has been and continues to be used for decades in a non-pejorative fashion? Or more likely something else I haven't considered? I'll check back here on your user page unless you prefer to discuss this somewhere else. Thank you, Jgui ( talk) 07:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Jgui ( talk) 16:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
PS, if you have the time and haven't already seen it, here's Jayjg's current version of the JL page HERE; here's the version that included its Descriptive usage and Antisemitic Criticism HERE. Jgui ( talk) 07:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It has been more than a month since mediation was requested so I am asking everyone to re-confirm their intent to participate in the mediation. Please stop by and indicate whether or not you still wish to be involved. Thanks. Shell babelfish 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I took a brief look, and I must admit that it wasn't as easy as I thought to find many "neutral" usages of the term by noteables. I found a few newspapers using it and so on, but not much of much use I believe. Actually I found one example where a major newspaper had changed a title from "... Jewish Lobby" to "Israel-Lobby". On fairly notable source is this [1] from [dagbladet] "Critizism of Israel - State or regime" where the jewish professor Morten Levin defends [Jostein Gaarder], critizises the excessive use of antisemitism-accusations against critics of Israel, and draws a paralell to how M&W were condemned by "the jewish lobby". He seems to use the terms interchangibly. (Note: Levin also notes that he is regarded a "self hating jew" by the jewish environment in Norway). I know Jayjg will say he is not notable enough, but anyway.
I found some other interesting things here however: [2] referring to this review of M&W : [3] The NYT reviewer refers to the "jewish" lobby all the time when talking about M&W's book on the Israel Lobby. This has probably been discussed before, but I just wanted to mention it in case you hadn't seen it. I will contact you if I stumble over more. This is only based on a few minutes in front of the computer. pertn ( talk) 11:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I've created a new mediation page so that we can try this again, hopefully with a better result. If you wish to join, please sign here. Jayjg (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:BLP is really, really serious stuff. If you disagree with a WP:BLP removal, then bring it up on the article's Talk: page. Do not simply restore the material via a revert. Re-read Wikipedia:BLP#Restoring_deleted_content in particular. Jayjg (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Greetings Jgui! Sorry for not going to the talk page first. I've stated why I removed the passage you added at Talk:Gaza. -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 02:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for joining
WikiProject Palestine, a collaborative effort to make the project more comprehensive. A lot of articles need improvement; below are some ongoing tasks for you to take part in, or you can
add a task to do. Another great place to check out is
Category:Palestine stubs.
I saw that you have taken an interest in some Palestine-related articles ( Gaza, Hamas, etc.) so I thought you might want to join the project. Cheers! Al Ameer son ( talk) 17:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC) | |||||||||||
WikiProject Palestine, tasks you can do:
|
Nice to meet you, and thank you very much! Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 15:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me repeat my thanks for your spirited and cogent intervention at the RFA. I feel guilty that, so far, you have put more effort into my defence than I have myself. So, thank you. Far from being able to do a better job than you are doing, I had actually forgotten the extent of Gainline's vandalism in his previous incarnations, and you have summed up my case very well. I have asked the arbitrators to say whether they are pleased with the way the arbitration is proceeding, as I know from experience (and as no doubt you now also know) that trying to thrash things out with Falcon9x5 and Gainline in discussion can be very frustrating, not to mention time-consuming. Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 16:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hiya. Just a quick note, I've asked LP to contribute to the discussion twice, as has another user, just for context about my (and perhaps others) opinion on LP's attitude to the RfA process. Thanks! Fin © ™ 18:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, but I really dont need the help, and AGK's talk page is not exactly the proper forum for you and Jaakobou to be arguing. There are many more important things to do, things that I am now restricted from doing, such as dealing with straightforward BLP vios or fixing badly slanted articles or any number of other things that would be a more valuable use of your time rather than continue over there. Happy editing, nableezy - 22:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jgui, well we had this discussion awhile ago, the reasoning was that it was impossible to determine how many Hamas fighters had actually participated; likewise with IDF. So to put the two sides' total strength "(total)" emphasized on the Israeli side. The Noung source mentioned only the number of IDF ground troops who entered Gaza, which ignores the air campaign (from what bases did Israeli fly their sorties or berth their naval vessels, surely they were involved). Also we can't look only at activities in Gaza, as some editors have insisted on defining the Gaza war as a conflict that took place in Gaza and Israel. This does suggest we are right to include both sides' total strength, if Israel proper was under attack. So I reverted again from "20,000", it is ridiculous to suggest that Israel and Gaza's strength were equal in this war. I would also support listing the number of IDF tanks and fighter aircraft, as well. This is relevant information. Cheers, RomaC ( talk) 02:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Let me guess. You're voting for Keating. Me, I don't even live in the state. 166.137.138.190 ( talk) 20:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I was not referring to you when I created the subsection on the Barack Obama article and I mentioned edit-warring, because you did not revert me, I reverted you, so it would be imposible for me to accuse you of edit-warring. During the discussion at the article talkpage I thought you were the editor who reverted me but after checking the article history again I verified that the editor who reverted me was not you. So it was all a misunderstanding. Please see this also. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 05:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anwar al-Aulaqi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salon ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello Jgui, I've replied to your message on my talk page. — RCraig09 ( talk) 16:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.
Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Jgui. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Jgui~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.
Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation
00:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) ( talk)
14:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Jgui~enwiki. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)