User talk:Jtpaladin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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!  ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] ===== Please Post Your Comments =====

I'm delighted to be able to contribute to Wikipedia and work with members to help make this an accurate and useful source for the various topics found in any hardbound encyclopedia.

If you are modifying or adding to information I have posted, please contact me here and allow me the opportunity to share sources with you so that we can insure that we are offering the public the most accurate and up-to-date information available on the subject at hand. Also, please only edit your own comments on this page. Thank you


Please scroll down to append your message at the bottom or start a new topic.


[edit] Sources

I provided 2 scholarly URLs. I don't see any good reason (but a lot of bad ones) to exclude Jewish scholars, so I'll ignore your request for now. Welcome to WP where we do not discriminate people by their ethnicity/religion. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I just don't want some one-sided source that is not historically based. That's all I'm saying. I added info from the Jewish Encyclopedia so I'll assume you'll respect those edits and you won't remove them. Thanks for the welcome. --Jtpaladin 17:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. The numbers you insisted on adding belong to Kitos War (115-117). Different time, different place, different rulers - no relation to the Bar Kokhba's revolt (132-135). BTW, that article I never touched, except once adding a std. warbox template.
  2. The numbers you insisted on removing: another reputable source is Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (1987) p.141. By now, this is confirmed by 4 scholarly sources and more can be provided.
  3. The text you were inserting initially did not come from the JewishEncyclopedia. It can be found word-for-word in collections of quotes (some truly antisemitic, some fake, some out of context) found on the Net. Where did you get yours from?
  4. For sig, see WP:SIG and WP:SIGHELP.
Finally, I must say that so far you made a bad impression with your level of expertise, your ability to improve this particular area of WP and your personal attacks. See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I consider the accusations you've made as serious, but I'll ignore them because you're a newcomer. I don't mind being friends (whatever that means) but first please make sure to abide by our policies, be polite and professional. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Another problem edit of yours was [1]. It was reverted by someone else for being WP:POV but in fact it's worse: it was copy-pasted from [2]. Please check WP:COPYVIO and make sure to give credit where it is due. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The Kitos War is correctly a different conflict even though scholars tend to refer to both events in the same breath, but technically, you are right. I checked the Kitos War page and noticed that the information about the Gentile losses was left out even though the Jewish Encyclopedia was quoted in that article. As I mentioned, it's appropriate to give all relevant info on a subject and clearly someone leftout all the dead Gentiles from that conflict. As for the initial info I posted, I found it all over the place but I did not ultimately feel comfortable with that info because I did not take the time to get Dio's quotes and credit. So, you'll notice I did not re-post it. Sorry you feel I made a bad impression but this is more of not knowing how to use this system rather than purposely trying to do anything that would conflict with the rules of this forum. I prefer to stay professional but when you sarcastically used the term "blood thirsty Jews", I was EXTREMELY offended and felt that you were on the verge of calling me an anti-Semite or worse. That's the only reason I took things up a notch in my tone. Now, that we are both clear, I know we can both move forward as professionals. Thank you.
The links you posted don't help me figure out this "Talk?" problem. I still keep getting a solid "Talk". I'm using your "hy?" as an example, but mine does not work. Can you please help me directly rather than referring me to some other page? I would truly appreciate it. Thank you.
My edit of the "Evidence" section of the Senator McCarthy page was a matter of me posting the wrong Word document I had prepared. I corrected that today. Sorry about that mistake. It won't happen again. --Jtpaladin 18:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone explain how I add a "TALK?"

I would like to add a "TALK?" to the end of my signature when adding a comment. I keep following the format but all I get is a non-hyperlink "TALK?". Thank you for the help.

Still trying to figure this out. --Jtpaladin 01:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your post to Talk:McCarthyism

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. KarlBunker 16:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi -- I've responded to you on my talk page. KarlBunker 20:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] regarding your recent edit to Gulf of Tonkin Incident

You recent made an edit to the article, Gulf of Tonkin Incident [3]. In your edit you state as fact that the incident never happened. Yet you offer no source, nor an edit summary for your addition. Considering the disputed nature of this article, I ask that you please review and adhear to Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. Thanks. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Malo, thanks for bringing that to my attention. The reason I didn't post a source was because the second attack on U.S. forces has ranged from doubt to conspiracy. There is no longer any scholarly historian that even believes that an actual attack happened. It was all part of Johnson's plot to escalate the war. Even Johnson himself in public in 1965 had to admit that he didn't know whether the attack happened. While in private, this was just another "false "flag" operation much like what he did during the "Six Day War" where he plotted with Israeli authorities to sink the U.S.S. Liberty. He was overheard by two other admirals saying that he wanted the Liberty sunk. He personally recalled fighers from the Six fleet trying to go to the Liberty's help. Only the accidental involvement of a Russian spy ship stopped the attack because now there were witnesses.
Recently released NSA documents about a purposeful intent to distort the facts regarding the incident and even the LBJ Museum records make the argument solid that this was a conspiracy to get us into a war in Vietnam. So, I changed the verbage and cited one source that has links to other sources that make the issue clear enough that there should be no question that the second attack did not happen and that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was obtained by deceitful means. Jtpaladin 18:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Sockpuppetry allegation

Probably the best thing to do is leave the issue, unless he/she re-adds the tag, at which point they would be well advised to justify it or go through the proper channels to determine sockpuppetry. Feel free to contact me if the issue recurs. Martinp23 00:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Martinp23, thanks for your response. I appreciate your determination. I left a message days ago on his Talk page asking to justify his malicious action but he has yet to respond. Jtpaladin 17:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] YAF

How do I contact you? I am the president of a revived YAF chapter and we are trying to restore the organization. My e-mail is centralyaf@yahoo.com.

24.247.173.201 02:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

Talk pages are not for discussion of the subjects of the articles, and certainly not for posting personal essays. I thought that my edit summary explained why I'd removed the (very long) essay; if it didn't, I apologise. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Mel, I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by, "Talk pages are not for discussion of the subjects of the articles,...". My understanding is that Talk Pages are there to suggest improvements for an article and explain the thought process behind making those improvements. I stated that the article is lacking in completeness because, while there is some attempt to explain some of the chapters, other chapters are left out. Also, some of the chapters are miscategorized. And, the practical state of affairs as dictated by the "Protocols" is also worth mentioning. The incredible predictions made by the various chapters is certainly worth pointing out.
Is this more clear? If not, can you please explain where my logic is wrong? I would appreciate your help. Thank you. Jtpaladin 21:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi. Please don't keep posting your theory about the reality behind The Protocols on a Wikipedia talk page. We're not here to publish that sort of thing. If you'd like to publish your theory on the web, please find a web-hosting company. Jkelly 20:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are referring to empirical information as "theory". Again, I'm merely stating factual observations regarding what the "Protocols" called for and what has transpired since that time. This is quite relevant to the article because at the very least it displays a prophetic knowledge of whoever wrote the "Protocols" about things that couldn't be imagined from that period of time in history.
Plus, I'm pointing out that the article incorrectly titles some of the chapters and that there is a need to discuss all of the chapters. The article doesn't do that so I'm trying to improve it by adding that info. If I am writing something that is in violation of WP:TPG, would you please post a reference to the violation so that I can edit my comments to be in conformity? I would greatly appreciate that. Thank you.
P.S. Are you and Mel the same person? I only ask because you posted here within one minute of each other. Jtpaladin 22:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not mel but I agree with both of them - your theory is not suitable for wikipedia as it is original research - try a blog instead for that sort of stuff. --Fredrick day 22:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Fredrick, I very much appreciate your thoughts but can you be a bit more specific as to what you are agreeing? What aspect of my comments are outside the Talk Page Guidelines? Again, I think that the page can improved by correcting the label mistakes, adding commentary regarding the excluded chapters, and an analysis of the state of affairs vs. the goals of the "Protocols". Do you have an issue with all of that or some or one? If so, please direct me to the Talk Page Guideline that is transgressed. Please let me know. Thank you. Jtpaladin 22:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Note there is discussion of this issue here. MastCell 22:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
MastCell, thanks for the heads-up. I keep asking these guys what exactly is the problem with my comments and I get no answer, other than some non-descriptive statement that it's a personal essay. All I'm doing is posting factual observations. If these are not factual, then they would have a point. If you notice, no one actually disagrees with what I've said. I'm also stating that some of the titles in the article are incorrect. Is it wrong to point that out? And not all the chapters of the "Protocols" are cited. Isn't it an improvement of the article to cite all the chapters? All I'm doing at this point is posting comments to improve the article. These guys are just trying to censor the comments without actually telling what's wrong and how my comments transgress the Talk Pages Guidelines. Jtpaladin 00:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Your essay makes it plain that you are giving your personal opinion; what you call "facts" are at best disputable interpretations. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Mel, it's easy to merely call them personal opinions but if you can look at each item and tell me which one you disagree with, then you'll find that it is fact rather than opinion. I can supply independent citations to support each one, can you provide citations to the contrary? Jtpaladin 16:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
That you are unable to tell the difference between fact and interpretation/opinion doesn't bode well for your editing, but I just don't have time to continue this. Everyone else who has seen your essay has agreed that it's personal opinion, original research, and inappropriate at the Talk page; why not accept that and move on to more constructive issues? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mel Etitis (talk • contribs) 20:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
Mel, when a statement is made and a scholarly citation is given, then it's considered appropriate for Wikipedia. I've made this point over and over again yet either you're ignoring it or simply can not connect the dots. Either way, I have moved on by not trying to revert the page. In the meantime, I've made the corrections and added info to the article that I previously mentioned. Jtpaladin 00:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lagos and scams

I decided to add a section about 419 in the article. WhisperToMe 22:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Great news. Please post a link to that info. Thank you. Jtpaladin 17:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The discussion was at Talk:Lagos :) WhisperToMe 11:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Richards

Re this edit: in capital letters above that section it states there is a consensus for the wording and should not be changed unless a new consensus is reached. Please study this consensus. Tyrenius 03:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The following can be seen at YouTube. I will post it on the discussion page and give some time for comments before adding it back. Please let me know if this is the correct procedure. Thanks.
The audience at the Late Show with David Letterman seemed to think he wasn't serious and sneekered at comments that Richards made, like Afro-American (an outdated word to describe American-Americans), and at one point, Jerry Seinfeld had to tell the audience to stop laughing. Jtpaladin 17:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I consider it to be very incorrect. It seems to me that you have not, despite my note above, read the archived talk that reached this consensus. This is essential if you are to enter into what has been a long and contentious debate, which has finally reached consensus. Kindly read the archived talk thoroughly. Secondly YouTube is not a permissible source, as it is a copyvio. This has been discussed at length elsewhere on wiki, as well as in the archived talk. Therefore anything you post will count as unsourced and be a violation of WP:BLP, which is considered a very serious matter. Tyrenius 02:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read the consensus but the info I was attempting to add only expanded briefly on the Late Night show. The YouTube reference was only a clip of an actual TV show that I watched. It was not meant to be an actual footnote. The show did occur as was mentioned in the article already and therefore it is verfiable and truthful. Nevertheless, I won't bother with the article any further. Jtpaladin 16:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Greetings Jtpaladin, I just wanted to let you know that I support your moves to properly document this event in the Michael Richards article. That said I must caution you that as you are likely becoming aware of editing of the article has been highly contentious and the disputes long lasting. I hope that you will be patient as editing goes forward on it. Cheers. (→Netscott) 18:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Netscott, yes, thank you for your thoughts. I greatly appreciate them and I await further word from the consensus in order to better structure the LFI. Thanks again. Jtpaladin 17:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The edits made to the consensus section should be reverted, unless proper discussion achieves a new consensus. Please note the dialogue preceding consensus thoroughly explored all aspects, including Youtube etc. Tyrenius 22:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Tyrenius, I agree with the consensus issue as I stated. However, regarding Letterman, please forget about YouTube for a moment and consider that the event that I mentioned actually did occur and no one is denying it and that it is worth mentioning. As I stated, I await consensus in order to add it. Jtpaladin 17:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/t/p/User_talk%7EJtpaladin_16c7.html"