User talk:John Hyams

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "talk page" of John Hyams is cleared every 6 months, every once in a while, or when John wishes to wipe the slate clean. Your understanding regarding this standing policy would be appreciated.

Contents 1 User Page Name 2 International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust 3 Your message to administrators 4 Ghazan 5 Techshoret 6 AfD nomination of Bob Proctor

[edit] User Page Name

I have moved your user page and user talk page to User:John Hyams & User talk:John Hyams respectively as that matches your actual username. The lowercase user pages now redirect to these. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 02:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust

Hi John,

while I probably agree with you about the aims of the conference, your additions are not actually well-sourced. Finding generic hate and stupidity cannot be used to support a specific statement. Also, you are by now way over WP:3RR (a revert under that rule is any edit that undoes part of the work of another editor), so please step a bit more careful and wait for the outcome of the discussion on the talk page before making contested changes. Wikipedians are a very mixed bag, but on the whole a tolerant and very much anti-hate crowd. --Stephan Schulz 19:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have read the 3RR policy and found that my case falls in the exceptions. Anyway, the issue was resolved, eventually. Thanks for the comment. John Hyams 20:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I suggest you check some cases on WP:AN/3RR. I don't know which exceptions you claim, but I see no obvious candidates. I hope you don't count on "simple, obvious vandalism". Anyways, good luck and good editing!--Stephan Schulz 22:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it was disguised Antisemitism, being masked as "objective edits" by some editors. In other words, "sophisticated, non-obvious vandalism", which is much more dangerous that obvious vandalism. Posts of mine that were brutally deleted without discussion or any plausible reasoning, even those that I cited properly. Eventually, the same "not sourced" posts of mine were sourced, and everyone accepted it, but I was amazed of the ignorance of people. How could I source things that I hear on the radio almost every day?? I live in this reality, but if there are no source links - it counts as "not actually well-sourced". More than half of Wikipedia is not well sourced, I can by the same logic delete half of Wikipedia for not providing enough suitable sources. Anyway, I would have taken this issue up to Jimbo Wales (I was about to post this debate to the mass TV media), but eventually my edit was basically accepted. Know this, although what you say about Wikipedians, I cannot always trust that claim, and Wikipedia is not a grand stage for supporting half truths, originated in biased/hate attitudes. If it's not in the policies or guidelines, then maybe I should put the same fight on those pages. But thanks for being so concerned for me. John Hyams 09:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

However, "sophisticated, non-obvious vandalism" is not exempt from WP:3RR. And Jimbo's (and Wikipedia's) position has always been "Verifiability, not truth" (WP:V), because "truth" is hard to establish and reasonable people can differ about what it true. I do not, for example, agree with your view that most of your opposers were motivated by anti-semitism. I know that I'm not.

Re. verifiability: Sorry, but your personal perception of reality is not verifiable, and has no place on Wikipedia. But much of what you talk about is verifiable. There may be transcripts of the radio programs (and then it should be reported as "according to radio station X, ..."), and the same topics are usually taken up by newspapers, many of which nowadays have online editions that make verification easy. It's not that we do not want this information, but we want it in a high-quality, checkable, enduring format, so that people can rely on it. Otherwise, this site is not more credible than some arbitrary blog (of which there are plenty). --Stephan Schulz 10:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, basically I agree with you, and I hope not to be in such a position again. I can see that you are a good Wikipedia editor. John Hyams 10:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad we found agreement. I'll go and buy myself a banana now ;-) --Stephan Schulz 10:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your message to administrators

I totally agree with you, administrators just go around doing what they want. They also put far too many articles up for speedy deletion. Djmckee1 18:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ghazan

Hi John! Thank you for your comments on Ghazan. It has been a great pleasure for me to expand articles on the Ilkhanate indeed. Best regards. PHG (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Techshoret

Hi, I saw your note: I guess there are a few of us on here...

Telaviv1 (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes indeed :)) Nice to meet you, my post on Techshoret was a very long time ago :) John Hyams (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have liked to but balked at the 650 shekel price. However we could meet up for a drink in Tel-Aviv some time. Telaviv1 (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree regarding the price, but in my case, my company paid :) Sure, when the weather is good. John Hyams (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Bob Proctor

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bob Proctor, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Proctor. Thank you. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)