User talk:Jaysweet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
[edit] belligerent comments on your user page
I suggest you ignore them. Especially when they come from users with a negligible edit count and are completely unconstructive. If they border on a personal attack contact an admin to have the user or ip banned for a short while. Not everyone will agree with you on every editing issue, but all serious users will agree that the comments you've been getting are inappropriate.
regarding the similarities to the 1996 attack, yes I think they should go in. I think the point of view of the people and news sources making this comparison should be noted, and citations given to specific quotations if possible. Let me know if I can help you with anything else. Dsol 22:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I did put one more thing on the talk page pointing out that nobody has ever cited a specific edit of mine that was propaganda, but I swear I will ignore the trolls from now on. I promise! Anyway, thanks very much for the answers and advice!! --Jaysweet 23:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Omar
I believe this editor may be acting in bad faith. They removed a POV tag I placed on the article due to the conspiracy theory. They did it inside 4 minutes. On checking the users edit history, (Qana is the only article that ID has worked on), I found a number of edits which appear to be deliberately misleading [1] [2] [3] [4]
How does this user get stopped from disrupting it with his silly edit wars and refusal to discuss before acting? 82.29.227.171 10:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I also believe the same thing, unfortunately, it is difficult because Omar's edits are not blatant vandalism. I am not exactly sure how to deal with it. FYI, tasc is also dead-set against the pov tag, he is not willing to negotiate, and if you check his [User Talk:tasc|Talk page], you will see that he has no qualms about engaging in a messy revert war. He has also deleted and entire section I added and refused repeated requests to justify himself.
I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, so I'm not really sure what to do. Blatant vandalism is easy to handle, I just revert it and report it on WP:AIV. But the sort of subtle vandalism that Omar and tasc are engaging in, I don't know... We could try reporting it, but it's subtle enough I'm not sure anything would happen.
The only hope I think is WP:3RR. If we can get a concensus on the Talk page from multiple people that there should be a pov tag, then Omar and/or tasc could get dinged for reverting it four times in 24 hours. tasc has already been blocked for this twice in the past (although he is utterly unrepentant about it...)
I certainly think a pov tag would be good. Although I think we've reached a reasonable compromise on the "Hoax" section, I know some people are still uncomfortable with its presence at all. The casualty numbers swing by a factor of 2x about every 12 hours. The accompanying photo keeps disappearing and reappearing. How is that all not disputed? heh... --Jaysweet 13:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- OK I see it is a delicate situation with these people. I'm re-writing the hoax section now as 1) the allegations in all their gruesome detail arent listed 2) the rebuttal/denials to the allegations arent listed. So its suitably fudged to give the impression there is some factual detail lurking somewhere. Once re-written it can go into its own article and be kept away from factual information on the event. Its polluting the page, just as certain editors are polluting & stifling the athmosphere of the discussion imho. 82.29.227.171 14:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'd leave the hoax section as is unless you get buy-in from folks on the Talk page. We spent a lot of time reaching concensus for the one we have now, and while I'm still not completely happy with it, it's much better than what it has been -- and was fairly stable, until somebody just went in and trashed it... --Jaysweet 15:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Qana airstrike
I agree with you that we need to tread carefully. But hear me out. I was not attempting to explain the attack, but simply state that it wasn't made in a vacuum. I did not claim it to be fact, and I qualified it with according to the IDF. In previous versions I did not believe that the qualifier even needed to exist. I think it adds just enough background to make the article rounded. Of course, I am open to suggestions that don't include deleting the information from the article, and preferably not the intro.
Guy Montag 19:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The 2006 Qana airstrike was launched by the Israel Air Force (IAF) on the South Lebanese village of Qana, on 30 July 2006, during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, according to the IDF, in response to numerous Hezbollah rocket attacks emenating from the village.[1]. Considerable controversy ensued over the propriety of the attack (see reactions and Hoax conspiracy theories below).
What do you think about this version?
Guy Montag 19:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Referencing help
You mentioned on the Qana talk page that you'd like help with referencing; two pages that will be of help are WP:FN for making footnotes using the <ref> style, and WP:CTT for the news templates tewfik was talking about. Hope that helps. --Iorek85 05:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Hehe, that's exactly how I used to edit pages. Glad I could help. --Iorek85 23:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I must be one of the 5% of people who are not an idiot by your standards...
...because I happen to know that that particular prank was AfD'd and deleted. Putting it under a different name doesn't save it from speedy deletion. I left your PROD tag, just in case. Thanks for trying. I just needed time to get the redirect to the original AfD correct. Billy Blythe 16:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about my kind of snide comment on your user page, then. Just a mistake, I guess. Have a nice day. Billy Blythe 16:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Piotr Blass
You can read up here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piotr Blass. Don't forget to vote on the page! Mhym 18:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Have a smile
Runcorn has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
--Runcorn 21:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Council statements in 2006 Qana airstrike
This has already been discussed ad nauseam in the Israeli-Lebanese conflict thread.[5]
As I've explained there, the council statments have nothing to do with the Qana strike, which is the most relevent point, and secondly, the ynet article is erreneous as the statement was made weeks before.
Thanks
Guy Montag 22:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I see you added these comments to the Talk page. Good! Frankly, I do not know nearly enough about the Yesha Rabbinical Council to have any sort of opinion on whether their statement should be included, even if it had been made after the airstrike, and that's why, as you can see, I was trying to remain neutral :) I just hate seeing revert wars, so I tried to get people to talk. I see people are talking now, and that's good! So that's all my intention was :) --Jaysweet 01:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Casio Super Picky Talk
You wanted information on this machine...not much is out there, but here's a page with a photo of one and a little description. http://afoxai.ld.infoseek.co.jp/1coin/1coin.html Alcy 08:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks very much for the explanation
I, too, was wondering why we were crossing paths without edit conflict notices on Top tank. Thanks for the explanation. It explains why it looked like you were constantly trying to supercede me. I thought it was because my AfD link was a redlink, but that was only because I parsed it wrong. If you think you've run across some kind of crap article that may have appeared before as many have, let me know. I have inherited an extensive private database of AfD rulings. Billy Blythe 16:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good! I've also learned to be a little bolder with the Speedy Delete tag for articles that are obviously bogus :) I'll ping you if I see something that looks like a repeat.
- I'm currently following the mess over at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Piotr_Blass. Oy... --Jaysweet 17:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Renaming articles
Hello Jaysweet. Regarding your comment on renaming article at Qaa talk page, you may find WP:MM and Help:Moving a page helpful. Just click the move button at the top of the page and type the new name. The old name will redirect to the new one.--Wedian 19:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you!!! For some reason, I didn't see the "move" button. Temporary blindness I guess :) Thanks again! --Jaysweet 20:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Conversation with Dr. Blass
Dear Jaysweet, What exactly is your problem with my page? I am willing to dicuss it rationally. Please use my website and e mail to communicate Why do you wish to be anonymous? best regards ulam lives!!! dr piotr blass piotrek ps I am one of the pioneers of the web and have a bitter sweet feeling about all of you gys o tempora o mores! pb
ok i will provide references and evidence that uq was the first refereed electronic math journal in the world. give me a little time to gather my data. also the journal was originally prepared in einstein's old princeton office. I will get a note from them if absolutely necessary. once i do this i hope you guys will leave my page alone and i shall prepare a separate article on the ulam movement 1987---now including the ulam q truce ---shalom piotrek
what is mhem's problem? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.168.221.213 (talk • contribs) .
Dr. Blass,
Let me address all of your points, beginning with my desire to conceal my e-mail address.
I am not insisting on remaining entirely anonymous. My name is James Sweet. My Wikipedia account name is Jaysweet because I usually go by the nickname Jay.
I do not wish to give out my e-mail address to strangers, primarily because of the risk for spam. And in any case, my e-mail address would not make me any less anonymous to you, because it is on a free webmail service and is very similar to my Wikipedia account name.
I do not wish to give out personal information beyond my full name, because frankly, there are a lot of crazies out there and I wouldn't want someone with an ax to grind to track me down in real life and create problems for me. (The fact that you have threatened other users with legal action certainly does nothing to ease my concern in this regard!)
Next, my primary issue with "your page," as you call it, is best summed up by the way you refer to it: "my page." Please see this article about what Wikipedia is not, specifically that it is not a free web-hosting site. By creating a poorly-sourced universally positive autobiographical article about yourself, you have created the impression that it is more like a Piotr Blass MySpace page rather than a true encyclopedia article.
The fact that your creation of the page coincided with the start of your 2006 gubernatorial election campaign, together with the fact that you quote your version of the Wikipedia article prominently on the election campaign website, contributes to the perception that you are doing this merely as a shameless act of self-promotion.
If I am wrong about your reasons for creating the article, I apologize -- but you must understand why people are perceiving it this way.
Lastly, regarding your question, "what is mhem's problem?", I will answer in general regarding both mhem and the other users who you have accused of having a vendetta against you: Many Wikipedians are incredibly passionate about the quality of information in Wikipedia. They argue that unsourced material, articles about non-notable topics, and self-promotion are all very destructive to a goal that they have worked long and hard to acheive. For the reasons I already cited above, they felt that your article was an act of self-promotion and took action, as per standard Wikipedia policies, to discover whether it should be deleted. Note that this was not an attack on you -- this started when some users questioned the validity of the article, and began a standard and well-defined procedure wherein Wikipedians collectively reach a concensus on whether an article is worthy of inclusion or not. That was a question to the community, not an attack, as you seemed to perceive it.
And that's where things got nasty. You responded to this procedure by erasing the "proposed for deletion" tag, which is a direct violation of Wikipedia policy. You then accused people of attacking you for political and racial reasons, which is a very strong card to play and certainly will cause people to become understandably incensed -- and you must realize this was an escalation in rhetoric that you yourself initiated. You also threatened users with legal action, which is strongly discouraged by official Wikipedia policy.
Dr. Blass, I don't want to make you feel that I am picking on you, but there are also several other instances where you violated various Wikipedia policies that I have not even bothered to mention. I understand why you are frustrated, but you must understand that Wikipedia is a place with existing rules. You cannot simply ignore those rules because you disagree with them.
Frankly, I myself disagree with a lot of Wikipedia policies, too. But I am not the one writing the checks. As long as Wikipedia is a free, donation-supported, ad-free service, I will abide by the rules set by the owners of the website.
During this entire process, you have been ignoring those rules, and when users attempted to assist you in understanding the process, you accused them of making a personal attack on you. That's really not going to win you any friends.
Dr. Blass, here is what I would suggest to you: Ignore the article about you for now. Unless you really did create it in order to assist your election campaign, it should not be that important whether there is a Piotr Blass article today, or if it iis created six months from now instead. Instead, I think you should spend some time participating in the editing of other Wikipedia articles that you find interesting but that are not related to you or your profession. I think that will be a good way for you to get used to Wikipedia policies and the general process for reaching consensus on Wikipedia.
If after doing that for a while, you still feel you want to try and do an auto-biographical article, perhaps you can try again. But as it is now, your accusations have created so much bad blood, I frankly do not see any way to avoid the deletion of the article as it currently stands. I am sorry to tell you that, but this is the lay of the land as I see it.
Best of luck to you in your campaign! Oh, and by the way, it is generally appreciated if you sign each post in the talk page by including two dashes followed by four tildes, i.e. like this: --~~~~. This will put a timestamp and user name following your post, and will make it easier for users to follow what has happened. Just adhering to this simple guideline will make people take you a lot more seriously! I hope that helps! :) --Jaysweet 22:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
DEAR JAY SWEET I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT MERITAS IS SCOUT'S HONOR I SHALL RESPOND TO ALL YOUR OTHER SUGGESTIONS A LITTLE LATER SINCE I HAVE AN APPOINTMENT. I HAVE TO BE FRANK WITH YOU I AM MORE PASSIONATE ABOUT THE WEB THAN PERHAPS ANY OF YOU GUYS HAVING BEEN IN ITS LABOR DELIVERY ROOM SINCE 1987 IT IS MY BABY AND I LOVE YOU GUYS MAKING GOOD USE OF IT.
NEVERTHELESS I DETECT CULT LIKE TENDENCIES IN THE CURRENT WIKIPEDIA ALSO YOUR BOSS JIMBO HAS NOT HAD A GOOD START IN HIS WEB LIFE THAT HAS A DEFINITE EFFECT AS I SEE IT.
I CHOOSE NOT TO GIVE UP IF YOU GUYS DELETE ME THE WORLD WILL KNOW AND ULTIMATELY CHANGES WILL BE MADE EITHER IN YOUR GROUP OR AROUND YOUR GROUP THE WEB IS TOO PRECIOUS TO BECOME CULT LIKE.
THAT DOES NOT DENY YOUR FINE CHARACTER AND INTENTIONS PLEASE READ UP ON THE CULT DYNAMIC A BIT
I FEEL THAT IT IS AN HONOR FOR YOU TO HAVE MY PAGE IF YOU DELETE IT OR TRASH IT IT IS YOUR LOSS FINALLY JEFF FISHER IS NOT RELIABLE AND REPEATING HIS STUFF IS KIND OF..... SHALOM ULAM LIVES EINSTEIN LIVES WILL BE HAPPY TO MENTOR YOU YOU KNOW WHERE YOU CAN FIND ME LOVE AND ALL THAT STUFF PIOTREK PS I HAVE A LETTER FROM EINSTEIN'S OLD OFFICE CONFIRMING THE PRIORITY OF THE ULAM QUARTERLY JOURNAL YOU MAY CHECK WITH PIOTR KONIECZNY WHO HAS A COPY NOT FOR PUBLICATION PEER REVIEW FROM ULAM PRODUCED HIGHER QUALITY THAN WIKIPEDIA PB
ALSO FISHERS CAMPAIGN MANAGER WROTE TO ME CALLING FISHER'S TALK BABBLE.... ENOUGH SAID PLEASE SHARE WITH ALBIX AND RUOLONG WHOEVER THESE GUYS ARE TRUTH WINS IN THE END PB
[edit] Care to comment?
There is a discussion on Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict talkpage about the inclusion of detail for Israel. I am of the view that Israel should be included but the detail is being continually removed by User:Tewfik.
Tewfik's argument is what he considers the illegality of Hezbollah under UN 1559. How this has a bearing on a balanced representation of aid to the combatants is never made clear. Tewfik has not removed recent requests of arms sales to Israel such as jet fuel and GBU-28's but removed the history of such arms shipments. I believe he is pushing the POV that aid to Israel is only in response to the current crisis or the illegality of Hezbollah under 1559. US aid to Israel is in fact a long standing agreement responsible for the size and makeup of the IDF. Without the aid they would not have a military capable of engaging in conflict. This is a question of balance in the article and if you can take a look and support my position (was working under 82.29.227.171) that would be great. RandomGalen 17:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sounds interesting. Unfortunately, I have to go do some work now :) I'll take a look at it later... --Jaysweet 17:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy deletion criteria
You have proposed Freedom wireless network - Serbia for speedy deletion using the rational "WP:VAIN or WP:CORP, hard to tell". Neither of these are speedy deletion criteria, please have another read over WP:CSD. Thanks/wangi 21:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comair dispute
Jaysweet, I apologise for my petty criticisms - I really should have more self-control. Tell me though, in my note I said "services of his sidekicks VxSote, LrdChaos, Peyna and Dblevins2". Why did you respond? Is one of these names an alias for Jaysweet? My irritation stems from discovering that there is so much in the way of petty politics in Wikipedia, which is tragic considering the grand idea that it is. Philistines and bureaucrats are two of my pet hates, and there are plenty of them in these pages. Once again, I'm sorry for venting my frustration on you. Paul venter 16:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's okay. The reason I responded to the comment is because I think you are giving the rest of those folks a bad rap. In fact, you can see a lot of healthy discussion between all four of those named and Chrislawson, where they often respectfully disagree with each other. And since I was "guilty" of the same crime as them (i.e. reverting the victims list), I felt implicitly incriminated even though you didn't mention me by name. I know I was sort of butting in, but I couldn't help it. You see, I should have more self-control, too ;D
- I understand a lot of your points, and it is true there are a lot of frustrating politics at WP. The current events articles are always the worst in that regard. I sometimes enjoy trying to build consensus ;) on controversial and current articles, but I'll usually only do that for a day or two at a time and then take a week off from it, because it is so stressful. On those articles, you've got brand new users coming in and making edits with no idea what they are doing; you've got people with a clear ax to grind, trying to slip in POV edits to fit their agenda; you've got long-standing editors who are well-meaning and honestly trying to make the article better, but are so jaded that they tend to be rude and heavy-handed in their enforcement; and then you just have your run-of-the-mill vandals, who are more likely to find and target articles that are linked to from the main page. It can get really quite ugly, as I'm sure you have discovered! :D
- Things tend to be much more laid-back on the less current, less controversial articles. In any case, I hope your other experiences at Wikipedia are much more positive!! :) --Jaysweet 16:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Destrain Place
I notice you stuck a "speedy deletion" notice on my DP article... why? Janet6 22:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Terra Naomi
I would like to ask you to reconsider your position on this article. Despite her obscurity, the subject does appear to have relevance and a following, at least online, similar in size to other indie acts. If you did feel right on the line, I would ask that you take a hard look at the Google hits on this one and say for sure she's nn. --AlexWCovington (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I would buy into her stuff myself (I can't say I'm a fan of anything coming out of Los Angeles these days), I'm just seeing a following that can't be ignored. There's no rush to change your mind, though; the AFD shouldn't close for a few days if it's not too lopsided. --AlexWCovington (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sounds good. I'll keep an open mind. It is true, though, if I'd thought it was a good song I would be much more convinceable ;) Frankly, I think my music is waaaay better, but unfortunately I am not a hot chick with a good voice (like Terra Naomi), instead I am unfortunately a fat dude with a bad voice. hahahaha... but I've been studying music since I was six, I can write songs way better than that hot chick with a good voice! hehehehe -- so that makes me a little biased. --Jaysweet 05:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Steve Irwin
It was a goof. I wanted to see how long it would take. Thank you for reverting. :-) -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ha ha, okay, no problem. Yeah, I went to your talk page to give you a nice stern warning, and then I was like -- "Waaah??" hehehe... --19:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] IP 12.151.120.81
You're right about 12.151.120.81 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log): he'll probably return to vandalism the moment the block expires. I've brought it up at the Administrators' noticeboard, because I think it's best if the other admins review the block and the behaviour of this user. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 19:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "3 strikes your out"
Yeah, thats fine. It's good to give a "final warning, however, and I think admins like that, because vandalism after final warnings is a surefire criteria for a block. I usually go test1, test3, test4, and then WP:AIV, but in certain cases it might change. I guess you can read about it here Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol. Keep up the good work, Danski14 19:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ethnic-group lists deletion discussions
Hi, I noticed you participated in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African Americans (3rd nomination) deletion discussion. If you haven't participated in the very similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese Americans discussion, which involves essentially the same issues, please do. There's also the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Caucasian Americans (second nomination). I'll asking everyone who participated in one to participate in the others. I apologize for bothering you if you already have participated in more than one. Best wishes, Noroton 04:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] =Please stop vandalizing my page
Please stop vandalizing my page, or you will be blocked. Curalkeeps 09:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- If any serious editors read this, please check Curalkeeps' contribs. I believe the "vandalism" he is referring to is a series of legitimate warnings on his talk page regarding personal attacks made at Talk:Red Army atrocities.
- Curalkeeps, I am not vandalizing your talk page. In fact, when you blank legitimate warnings from your talk page, that is considered vandalism. I am quite confident in who will be blocked if this escalates to that level. But I hope it won't. I really hope we can reach a consensus here! However, I do not think that will be possible until you stop accusing people of being "naizes." heh... --Jaysweet 13:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mel Gibson
Hey there. Read your note regarding Mel Gibson. Let me explain why i made the edit I did and hopefully we can come to an agreement. You've got fact based behavior listed under the heading "accusations".
Technically, Mel Gibson should probably be escribed as an anti Semite. There are other less famouse and less entrenched people who have done a lot less to gain that moniker. However, I realize that Mr. Gibson probably only feels this way part of the time and indeed has many Jewish freinds and likes many aspects of Judaism. So I'm willing to forego making major changes to the article on those grounds.
My larger issue has to do with the classification of the July 28, 2006 as an ACCUSATION of anti semitic behavior. If you look at the facts, there can be no doubt that this was anti semetic behavior. Why else would Mr. Gibson feel the need to apologize for it and decalre that he is not one. So what can we do?--Dr who1975 20:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- As I said. I'm not interested in calling Gibson an anti semite on his opage. I just think his anti semtic behavior on that one evening should be labeled as such. I'm going to think on this.--Dr who1975 20:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. Malcolm Ross (anti-Semite)--Dr who1975 20:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
