User talk:Jpgordon/Archive 1

We are not worthy..... We are not worthy..... Gzuckier 19:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mad mad props to the boingo. Crucial, fundamental music. Thanks Jpgordon! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome! I just wish someone had some recordings that included me! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completly with you about the sources. Right now, i posted a pre-writing as CtsWyneken and i are collaberating on that paragraph. He has a few books and other documents on the topic that he said he was going to post later. By the way, i never take critisicm as an act of meaniness, and wholly appreciate and accept all of it that i recieve. Thanks again, and feel free to leave me another message, Thetruthbelow 03:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed up the Luther article a bit, but i will make sure to do more in the morning.Thetruthbelow 03:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits cracked me up. Quite good. Few people notice that. I am also not fond of basically, generally, hopefully, firstly, and many other words so horribly misused today. Sarum blue 03:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page. :) CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't delete it, but I did mark it for deletion. The article, as you noted, was nothing but a cut-and-paste from a published obituary; that's not appropriate material for Wikipedia. Even if it were, there was nothing on the page that indicated that the subject was sufficiently WP:BIO notable for inclusion in Wikipedia; I don't mean to speak poorly of your grandfather, but if even his obituary can't say anything significant about him other than being a bank president, then it doesn't seem likely he'd meet the main criterion: has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?

By the way -- when posting comments on talk pages, please post them at the bottom of the page (not the top), and sign them with four tildes: ~~~~ --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had you given me the chance to complete the article, you would have noted that he was a early leader in the shareholders rights movement that seems to be all the rage amongst hedge funds today. I am new to this, so how would I have the administrator who deleted it agree to restore the article? I have a bunch of information that I am going to add to it. --Irishkevin2 04:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the newspaper articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Conway2.pdf#Summary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Conway3.pdf

Fair enough. I have done so. --Irishkevin2 06:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your request for comment on the Abraham Lincoln article. I put some comments on the talk page after giving it a close read through. I didn't see any major changes, but some minor ones as well as janitoral things that could be done to spruce up the article. By the way, when you added the RFC you didn't sign it. I had to go back into the history of the RFC page to find out who added it. Let me know what you think. Davidpdx 08:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I was just commenting on the article that CTSWyneken sent me, but I will give consideration to your thought. I appreciate your honesty, but I must say I am new here, and it feels like pretty much everything I type is crticised by others, and I would just say to you and them that I am trying my best. Nevertheless, I thank you for your comment, and I enjoyed talking with you.Your friend, Thetruthbelow 00:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I'm sorry about my past comment, but I guess I was upset about all the crticism I have recieved. I understand why all of you do it, and I know you don't mean harm, but I just was feeling very down about it. I feel no offense towards you or any others, but I just wished to expressed how I feel. Thank you, Thetruthbelow 00:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the text back in the article. Let's work with Truth to refine his work. After all, he's new and working hard. There is much worse writing in Wikipedia. I've posted citing suggestions for him on the talk page of On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther). Could you pick one content problem and ask him to fix it? --CTSWyneken 10:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just read your comment to CTSWyneken. I agree with what you said about all the Jews, but I was just quoting from the article. I'm Jewish also, and trust me, living in Texas,I have experienced my share of anti-semitism. More than my share actually. I understand how touchy this subject is, but I was quoting from an article I had recieved from CTSWyneken, along with numerous other sources. Leave me a message so we can talk. Shalom, Thetruthbelow 01:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't offended me at all. It was the contrary actually. I thougt I had offended you. I regard you as a kind, intelligent editor, and I would even like to offer my friendship to you. No hard feelings, Thetruthbelow 02:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did I offend you? I wasn't sure, and just wanted to be positive that I didn't offend the Jewish religion, which both you and I share. Write me back. Thetruthbelow 02:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you blocked Naan Kadavul for an indefinite period. I'm not here to dispute that, it was a legitimate block. I'm just wondering if you have been following the results of that block on his talk page. He seems desperate to regain editing status. His actions today have so far shown he simply cannot be trusted with editing privileges but I'm wondering if there's an alternative rather than leaving the block in place indefinitely. --Yamla 22:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism&action=history --mboverload 04:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for deleting the speedy tag on the redirect. Could you do me a favor and pull the one on Pennys, too? (It's pointing to J. C. Penney, as well.) Thanks. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking about that. Perhaps the two pages (Penneys and Pennys) should be disambiguation pages--then again, apparently "Penneys" is the proper name of the Ireland chain, whereas it isn't for the U.S. one. Pennys isn't proper for either, so neither has a good claim on it, and I think it should head to the more notable one. In either case, it certainly shouldn't be speedied, so thanks again. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for saying Hi to a newbie :) JRBrown 14:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JP, please have a look at this statement'Clout' of the 'Jewish Cabal' by User:Doright. He misinterprets my words and tries to coax another editor into committing an infraction of Wikipedia rules. It is time that someone counsels Doright about the ettiquette used here. I dissociate myself from Ptm's comments on the Martin Luther talk page [1] about a "cabal." However, Doright is implying that I am saying there is such a thing. Doright's activity violates WP:CIVIL and WP:COPY (earlier). Please take this under advisement. Drboisclair 23:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molto grazie for your attention to this article. I did not want to violate the 3RR. Regards, Ground Zero | t 17:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was an edit with someone's personal info, and I was getting rid of it at a different location so it's less likely to be accidentally undeleted, or even seen, later. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I get it now. There's John Kerry, and there's Talk:John Kerry. I think I've cleared everything up now, and buried all the personal info in unmarked graves. Sorry for any inconvenience. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure how one approaches this but user KDRGibby is in my view editing very aggressively on the Cuba page. Removing sections to make a point etc, inserting duplicated material. Please see [2] for previous form.--Zleitzen 03:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your help, it's been most appreciated.--Zleitzen 05:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with her obsession with this alleged Lincoln photo? Her contributions revolve almost entirely around them, and that's hundreds of edits. It's an obvious fake considering Lincoln didn't have a beard at the time he was shot. She appears to have a connection with the author who's flogging his book, but that's just via e-mail. Is there more to this than that? Rklawton 03:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I visited the April 10 and "April 16" images in Commons. After checking out the full rez photo, it's obvious there's no way Lincoln grew that much hair in five days. If the photo is of Lincoln, it must have been taken while he was alive. The photographer probably set it aside because Lincoln's eyes were shut. See: Image:Abraham Lincoln half length seated, April 10, 1865.jpg. Note the bare skin under the sideburns. Would it help if I posted a composite image of these to areas to facilitate comparison? Rklawton 03:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a change of opinion on this. Because of Gibby's relentless incivility and personal attacks on other editors, and his edit warring, but in particular because of the unbending nature of his approach to subjects on which he has strong feelings, I think it may (either now or soon) be time to consider invoking the General Probation in his case to ban him from Wikipedia completely. I don't think he's shown any sign of trying to work with other Wikipedians, and instead he's treating Wikipedia like a corner of Usenet. I no longer cling on to the hope that he has both the capacity and the will to reform.

KDRGibby is placed on general probation. Any three administrators, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban him from Wikipedia if his general pattern of activity is unacceptably disruptive. Such a ban and the basis for it shall logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby#Log of blocks and bans.

I'd be interested in your opinion on this. --Tony Sidaway 12:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion on this on WP:AN. I'd like to see if there are reasonable objections before pressing ahead. --Tony Sidaway 14:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the hypocrites thing. That was too strong a word, and I apologized on the talk page. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 00:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, myself and Ed Poor are attempting to relieve the Cuba page of repeated edit-wars by creating 2-3 sub-articles covering the controversial material. One of the key issues is Cuba and democracy, where the edit warring has made the international news. We have proposed and started an article which should cover all the angles, however there have already been a few calls for it to be deleted (most recently from 172, the editor who in effect has been the catalyst for the editwar). Could you take a look and give me your thoughts? See Cuba and democracy. Bear in mind that it's an issue often discussed, and I read a piece about it yesterday in my own newspaper--Zleitzen 03:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting out User:216.56.81.226 by blocking him. -- Chris Lester ^talk 19:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take it off. It need to be fixed. By Rakela 01:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... about my additions to the Aleister Crowley page. I was trying to play nice, just adding an external link to a series of quotes from Crowley, but when the link was deleted as not a proper source, i simply copied the relevant text by Crowley from that web page onto the WP page. I realize that long quotes are frowned upon at WP, but they were nattering on about how a reputable printed biographical book would have to be cited to pove contentions of racism and gender-bias, so i just wanted to short-cicuit their search for secondary sources when the primary source is available free online. They literally asked for it ... and so they got it. I am sure this will sort itself out in time, and i am going watch the perterbations that come next with a bit of stubborn amusement. :-) Catherineyronwode 03:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The additions to the Aleister Crowley page lasted less than one hour before they were removed as "vandalism" by user Frater5 -- but at least the Crowleists now have the "sources" they claimed they needed. ;-)

I think it is time for a formal call for administrative mediation on the editing of the page.

Being fairly new to WP and having never had to take an article to mediation before, i am unsure of how to proceed. Could you help, please? It would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks. Catherineyronwode 03:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please keep civility in mind when making edit comments. "Removing crap" can easily be considered fighting words; likewise, calling other people's good-faith edits "vandalism" is not conducive to the collaborative process. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I'm the nicest guy in the world...but her edit was garbage...it isn't about whether or not I agree with the position she's taking (I actually think she's more or less right), it's how she went about it. It wasn't a good-faith edit, and you know as well as I that that kind of addition to an article is going to cause an edit war. Keep in mind, I've been working very hard the last few weeks to compromise with Cat on a number of articles, and have been Mr. Nice Guy again and again. I've noticed a clear anti-Crowley bias in her writing, and it is only getting amplified lately. She has increased the number of opinion- and conclusion-based statements in her writing that have little to no basis in the literature, and they are all skewed against Crowley and Thelema. I believe a section addressing Crowley's "problem areas" is fine and appropriate, but it must be addressed with respect to the Wiki and the editors. What she did was neither. –Frater5 (talk/con) 04:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• *By the way, I hope you don't think we're on any opposite sides regarding Crowley and "Crowleyanity". Your user page makes it clear that we have a very similar take on the real meaning of Thelema; and I imagine if you've spent any time with organized Thelema in the Bay Area, we've got some people in common. 93 and Spoon! (I'm not sure what the formal order should be for those two salutations.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I admit that I'm getting angry and need to step back from this. She has really been pushing me lately, and it gets tiresome. –Frater5 (talk/con) 04:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, your input here would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JP, I would like to thank you for your work as an admin with regard to the Luther/antisemitic people matter. It is because of your looking at the matter objectively that I was able to overcome my own subjectivity on this matter. Thank you, --Drboisclair 15:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's comments like this that make me do what I do. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JP: Would you weigh in on the H-Net as a source issue? I'll take it to WP:RS eventually, but would like to resolve this issue, since there are others here, too. Thanks! --CTSWyneken 15:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, such "information" really is a waste of space and reader's time! I usually hate to be the one to take it out, but I support your move - Marshman 17:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still kinda new and I've been browsing through the articles on Thelema, or Thelema related material, and I was wondering if you knew a good way of going about saying that there is not much credibile evidence to support most of it. There have been fact tags on soem of the pages now or days. How long do I have to wait before I just "say" theres no evidence? You're welcome to comment back here, or on my talk page. Zos 06:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Evidence of what? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, evidence of anything pertaining to Thelema related claims. Some of the pages make remarks to that of egyptology, and there are no citations. I've raised issues on Stele of Revealing, Nuit (Thelema) (this one is in contrast to the regular Nuit page), Hadit (havent taken issue yet but serves as another example), and Heru-ra-ha. These are only a few examples of articles relating to the egyptian variation of spellings used in Thelema, and are not backed by Egyptian, or otherwise Egytpologist (egyptology) sources. I'm left in confusion, since I'm a partial Thelemite, and I want to add validity where I can, but I don't seem to be able to find any sources, and no one is commenting on my requests for sources. Any comments will help. Zos 07:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, all that. I never worried too much about it. I'm trying to remember, though -- he mentions somewhere who provided the translation of the Stele to him... Maybe it will come to me. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er. I think in Equinox he mentions Bugshe (spelling?) Bey, and another who translated it into french. Zos 07:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right...I don't particularly care for the proliferation of these little articles on parts of Thelemic theomythology. Wikipedia doesn't allow for what things like, say, Nuit (thelema) really deserve -- analyis and discussion within the framework of Thelema. Isn't there a 93pedia somewhere? The Egyptology probably doesn't hold up, but, y'know, Aiwaz isn't exactly a reliable source. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Which is why I was trying to merge Nuit with Nuit (Thelema) and was rejected by what I believe was sock puppetry (if i'm getting this terminology right), but have no general proof(plus I'm under the assumption that there is no Nuit in egyptology, the heiroglyphs were recently changed to Nut, so if I'm correct, the regular Nuit page shouldnt be there at all). It's hard to expand article when it seems its meant for a stub. But none the less, thanks for the help, its appreciated. And yes, theres Thelemapedia. Zos 07:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that there is too much properly sourced material then why don't you suggest which is the best to keep, rather than deleting it all?Doright 00:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I figure you're intelligent enough to pick one yourself. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but, one quote is not sufficient to establish that In On The Jews and Their Lies, Martin Luther repeatedly attacks Jews while invoking a concept of race. Note the word "repeatedly." It implies more than once. So how many are you going to allow before reverting the entire concept out of existence again? Are you familiar with the practice of improving an editor's contribution rather than entirely deleting it?Doright 00:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to establish it -- that's both OR and POV. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon, Please avoid revert wars. I'm trying to avoid one with you despite your aggressive posturing and completely wiping out my work. You said there are too many quotes. I said your offer of one is not enough and explained why. It makes no sense to say that Martin Luther repeatedly said something and then not provide some verifiable quotes of what he actually said. It is not POV or Original Research to quote the book, which after all is the subject of the article. So, how many quotations are you going to allow before reverting? Now you add what appears to me, as a bizarre claim that the edit is POV and NOR. Exactly what in the edit is POV and NOR? Doright 06:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to "establish" a position. That in itself is POV and NOR. What we do here is document; we're not supposed to be establishing anything -- that's the very definition of original research. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to me to be nonsense. I'm just saying that he said something and I'm quoting him directly without comment, analysis or POV, i.e., in his book, he says, "fill in the text." Are you saying I have to quote a third party scholar that he said something and that I can not just quote him directly?Doright 16:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to assert a conclusion based upon the sources or engage in argumentation, yes. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad to hear that, since no conclusion was ever asserted and no argument ever made. How one could possibly infer otherwise, I really don't know. If you don't mind me asking, have you read the book that is the subject of this article? BTW, I've also modified the edit by pulling most of the quotes out of the body of the article. Please feel free to improve the article, but please do not again engage in wholesale deletion.Doright 18:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that Catherine is implicating you in some form or another Here and Here. Not sure if you know about it yet. Zos 07:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I loved it, jpgordon, where you wrote to Linuxbeak about SlimVirgin leaving: ...you should have at least consulted with the people who had been harassed. ... --jpgordon—∆—∆ 16:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Yes, indeed, and you should turn that mirror on yourself. You are a direct cause of my leaving, and SynergeticMaggot|Zos is correct, i am implicating you for special-interest editing of the Crowley page. It is my opinion that you left chummy little Thelemic messages on the talk pages of people who were harassing me; that you continued to derogate my name for editorial work performed by KV and Bo-Bo despite my stating repeatedly for days that i was not the person who had made those edits, and that you let stand the use of {{fact}} tags as a weapon in the edit war that was then ongoing. Mediation was needed -- but instead of acting as an administrator, you took sides and used your admin status as a tool in the arsenal of those who want the Crowley page to reflect their special interests. Catherineyronwode 06:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you've read me completely wrongly there, and that's unfortunate. I think you were badly mistreated on that page, and what I was trying to to do was to achieve some sanity and reduce the edit warring. I truly believed that the page numbers in the citations were yours; apparently I erred -- but that's it. I might very well have missed your correcting me on that; I don't recall seeing any direct answer to my misplaced question (like, "what are you asking me for?"); perhaps bad reading on my part; however it came about, I apologize for the result; I don't apologize for my intent, however. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 12:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that didn't take very long for a vandal to pop up. Some articles are natural targets, and this is one of them. Any chance you might change your mind about duration? Rklawton 23:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you delete the article on William A. Conway, Jr.? I inserted a reference into the Walter Winchell article (which you deleted) and now the article about my grandfather is no longer there. It was a starting point for an article about the former CEO of Garden State Bank that I think would have been a very interesting article. Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishkevin2 (talk • contribs) 21:49, May 8, 2006

i was trying to delete more of the vandalism, i didnt notice i was posting an older version of the info. sorry.

I see you've cancelled my sentences in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage... i don't know why: not only Belgium and the Netherlands treat married gay couples and married straight couples in the same way, but also Spain does. http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:213.156.52.107

Yes, it was an oversight. I did not notice that the most recent entry was indefinite, so I reset the 6-month timer like so many people before. Indef sounds great to me. SlimVirgin has fixed this. — May. 14, '06 [19:29] <freakofnurxture|talk>

I did start a new one, but someone reverted it to the year-old one.

What makes you think it's the same guy? (not saying it isn't, just want to know more) --woggly 08:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Looking at the links from the sockpuppet template, I'm not convinced that Zordrac and the Col. are the same. I think that Z. just likes "defending the truth" by restoring other people's critical/trollish comments. FreplySpang 14:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I asked you this. Can you tell me all about your time working at ebay? I got a short description once before, but I want to hear more of it. DyslexicEditor 12:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought you might be in LiveHelp. It's interesting to me that you were a programmer for ebay. Would you have any idea, for how long does ebay keep records of IP addresses? DyslexicEditor 20:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. How long ago did you work there, or about what year did you leave? DyslexicEditor 21:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jpgordon, I think we agree about blogs being inappropriate for wikipedia; however, Historical and Investigative Research is not a blog. It is a collection of diligently referenced investigative articles on historical issues, written by a respected social scientist. I encourage you to check out the wikipedia entry for blog, where you’ll find a list of typical blog characteristics such as: reverse chronological entries listed one above the other (with permalinks to the full article), comments, and trackback features. Hirhome does not have these blog features, and blogs don't have the large amounts of references and footnotes that go into every hirhome article. I think we can both agree that without heavy reliance on sourced documentation, investigative and/or ecyclopedic writing is nothing more than POV (blogs typically fall into this category). Hirhome remains NPOV by letting evidence speak for itself though the extensive inclusion of and relience on sourced documentation. Read a hirhome article and you will see this for yourself.

I’m concerned about your singular discrimination against hirhome links. Above the hirhome link you deleted in Terrorism against Israel was another link entitled One Israeli's point of view: see a wealth of articles on terrorism and Israeli society's feelings and opinions. This link is clearly a blog, and yet you left it alone. This leads me to believe that you are mining pages to delete hirhome links without paying any attention to the surrounding entries. If you were really concerned about blogging on wikipedia like you say you are, then why are you going after hirhome, which is much more scholarly than a typical blog (according to wiki’s own guidelines)- and then letting clear examples of blogs stay up? It is hard for me to assume good faith given this point.

Also, given the pace at which you deleted the links, I’m guessing you didn’t even look at them. If you had, for example, read the linked article on anti-semitism, you would have seen that it was simply cataloging a clear example of modern anti-semitism displayed recently by the magazine The Economist. In this regard, the link was no different from the other external links that give examples of anti-Semitism. User:Cmart1

If it isn't peer-reviewed, it isn't academic. Academicians get tons of credit for publishing in peer-reviewed journals and squat for self-publishing. If it's self published, it's highly suspect - even if it's from a credentialed academic. In short, there's a reason for self-publishing, and it usually isn't favorable to good scholarship. Rklawton 02:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rklawton, we're on the same side of the argument here, at least in regard to Jpgordons recent deletion of my reference link in Human evolution. Check it out for yourself: he deleted a highly cited paper on human evolution from a very respectable, peer-reviewed scietific journal, Evolution and Human Behavior. This only reinforces my point that Jpgordon is singularly fixed on eliminating any and all trace of gil-white from wikipedia, even if it's a completely relevant and viable scientific journal article. Cmart 06:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd assumption -- that because I happen to notice the spamming of Gil-White's blog into multiple articles on my watchlist, I somehow have a particular animosity toward Gil-White. It doesn't take much examination of my contributions to see that I've got a particular animosity against blogs and a particular animosity against linkspam. The idea that I'm "mining pages" to "delete hirhome leaks" is kinda silly -- why would I need to do that? When a couple showed up on my watchlist, I checked to see who inserted them, and then checked to see if that person had inserted more of them -- same thing I do whenever I spot linkspam. If I really wanted to "mine pages", I'd just have used Google site search, but that's more work than I think it's worth; I was cherry picking. If I happened to inadvertantly delete one from an actual reliable source, as opposed to a blog, my apologies. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology, but you need to be more careful when deleting things. Perhaps you should rethink your strategy of quickly and carelessly reverting dozens of pages in the span of a few minutes. It's hard for fellow editors to assume good faith in you when its clear you don't take the time to verify your edits, which leads to mistakes like the one you made in Human evolution. Also, I see another problem with your system for removing linkspam: since you don't visit the site whose content you're deleting, you aren't removing other examples of linkspam on those pages. I mention this because it is what led me to believe you had a 'particular animosity' toward Gil-White, since other links which are much clearer examples of blogs were left untouched on those pages. In light of this, I hope you realize that mine was not an odd-assumption. What would you think if you were a random visitor looking at the history of say Terrorism against Israel, seeing that gil-white articles are zapped hours after inclusion while surronding linkspam blogs remain intact and stable for much longer? Anyway, With regard to your views on Hirhome links, could you please refer me to a wikipedia guidline that supports the notion that they constitute linkspam? I am still unconvinced that Hirhome is POV or that it qualifies as a blog. Thanks, Cmart 07:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I visited the site -- I looked at two or three of the hirhome links, and concluded that hirhome as a whole is a self-published work, thus falling under the guidelines at WP:RS#Using online and self-published sources. I didn't look at every other site linked to on every page to determine whether they were also inappropriate links, no. Feel free to do so. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JP: Would you explain to Doright that insulting me on the On the Jews and Their Lies talk page is not likely to get a response from me? Or should I just warn him and then file an RfC when he attacks, with any number of willing takers? this attack on my character, received this warning from Musical Linguist, whom he responded to in this manner. As you can see from the latest interchange on Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies, he keeps attacking. I'm running out of patience with this. --CTSWyneken 01:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not like I want to deal with the guy either, y'know. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• sigh* Sorry, I sometimes think I'm the only one he gives heartburn. I forget he attacks everyone that tells him he is wrong. Thanks for letting me blow off steam a bit.

If you don't want to weigh in on the latest at On the Jews and Their Lies, but I would appreciate knowing if you think I'm behaving well. I'm trying to toughen up. Life is too short to let guys like this get under my skin. --CTSWyneken 19:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your answer wasn't good enough. Give me a specific answer of what my addition to the Jesse Jackson article violated. How could it violate No Original Research when I cited my quotation? Honestly, you're not making sense, and neither did SlimVirgin. Answer my question, or I'm adding it back in tomorrow. You will not win on this unless you give specifics.Politician818 04:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. --Cyde↔Weys 17:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Y'know, this is a really annoying message to leave. I hope it's done automatically. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, manually. I'm running Cydebot in user talk warning substitution mode right now and your name came up, so ... I left you a little reminder to substitute the warnings yourself so that a bot doesn't have to clean up after you :-P Cyde↔Weys 17:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y'know, I leave perhaps hundreds of templated things every week. Depends how busy I am vandal fighting. You think a note like this is going to keep me from missing a subst every once in a while? Since the bot can do the cleanup anyway, the message is just a waste of my time (and yours, but that's your choice to make.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see why you're so hostile :-( Cyde↔Weys 19:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're mistaking annoyance for hostility. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, glad I read this, because I didn't know I should be using subst. --Habap 14:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a universal military phrase, as both sailors and Marines I've known knew what it meant. It does mean someone who is squared away and knows what they're doing. One Marine told me that it comes from the first day of boot camp, when you are instructed to put all of your valuables into one sock. Apparently, many new arrivals are unable to grasp the concept while 100 other things are being told to them, so those that understand and "have all their shit in one sock" are considered the Chesty Pullers of induction day. It is one of my favorite phrases, but I haven't used it much since I'm no longer working in a DoD environment and I don't really curse very much anymore. --Habap 14:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm not an admin, I'm assuming he means you. Other than that, I haven't the foggiest idea what he's talking about. Rklawton 06:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your redaction of my comments at Talk:Special rights is unacceptable; unless I am making personal attacks (which I do not do, with one exception since I started editing here), please do not do so again. Thank you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can self delete. Saying someone in the past has failed to follow WP:V makes them defensive. I don't want to deal with past issues. What positive function was that comment designed to achieve? When I mediate its the republic of nice, everyone is working together to build an encylopedia and making supportive comments. Your comment wasn't supportive.

You can reply here, I'll monitor and that way we keep the conversation unthreaded. jbolden1517^Talk 15:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, you can ask me politely to remove a comment, and I'll probably do so -- I'm a civil sort of guy -- but your penchant for editing or remoing other people's comments now has twice stuck in my craw; I think you need to re-examine whether the reactions to your actions (anger) are worse than the possible results of leaving the comments (defensiveness, in this case). I mean, there's no reason for you to be antagonizing me; it seems our only disagreement is this practice of yours. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a second! Those are two entirely unrelated issues. You are a good faith member of the wikipedia community who happens to be on a discussion board under mediation and thus has tightened rules about AGF, and NPA. So my edit of your comment is no big deal.

Now in terms of deletes of unnice comments by users, you are going to see many more of them if I'm running the mediation. My first priority is going to be to change the culture on this talk page. You outrank me so tell and if you want me out, I'll drop the case. But otherwise I run it my way. And that means enforced niceness for now (i.e. stuff that falls far short of a personal attack will still be censored). Cultural transformation driving content transformation which is the opposite of what usually occurs on non mediated talk pages.

The other delete, we've discussed has to do with a user Pudgenet who is a troll and has no legitimate reason to be in that discussion at all. We're even still talking about him because you facilitated his trolling when you went off half cocked. And I consider myself fully justified in believing that if you as an administrator step into an issue being handled by another administrator (as well as the arb committee) you have an obligation to get full background before you further complicate an already bad situation, for no good reason. But what's done is done nothing that can be done about that now. Though I would seriously hope you don't make it still worse.

So in short I'm not trying to antagonize you, it would be pointless as its too late for you to undo what you did. If it weren't for me throwing a fit about the other thing I would have deleted your comment and left a note on your talk page about it.

jbolden1517^Talk 17:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to the Wikipedia policy that gives you special rights to edit my comments. Or anyone else's. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None. Now what's your pleasure:

1. Do you want to take over the mediation?
2. Do you want to abide the mediation?
3. Do you want to avoid Special rights for the next few weeks?
4. Do you want to continue to wikilawyer and make it impossible for me to be succesful?

I have no interest in this topic other than helping people who asked for it and I can't do that with your actions. You are an admin anything other than support from you and the mediation is DOA. So I refuse option (4) which is what you seem to be aiming for. I would like you to pick one of the other options. jbolden1517^Talk 17:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikilawyering? Asking what gives you the right to do something generally considered improper is wikilawyering? That's a new one. I'll let you play the game you seem to want to play; you can deal with the consequences on your own. Bye for now. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but you just sent me a message claiming that I had 'vandalized' Martin Luther King's entry. I DID NOT. Someone ELSE replaced his ENTIRE article with some shit like, "Martin Luther King was a rockstar in a band called the Beatles and he liked pink" and some other crap like that. THAT is the ONLY content I removed.

---

Ok, good deal. I was a bit ruffled by the vandalization as well... I was including a link to his article in a column of sorts that I write.--Krizzae 01:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JPGordon, admittedly, I am not an admin, and I'm relatively new as an editor. Could you please explain to me why it is a bad thing for people of a particular interest to get together and discuss articles, if it is an interest group related to politics as opposed to geography or sexual orientation? Don't you want people of all idealogies working on articles? DavidBailey 17:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a difference between people of a particular interest and people of a particular idealogy; between what a person is and what a person believes. The whole user box thing started with something totally innocuous: what languages does the user speak? This, of course, is helpful with translations. I've got a few on my page also for "is" things; I'm a trumpet player, I'm a singer, I live in Nevada and California, that sort of thing. What I don't have is "User votes Democratic", "User is anti-Iraq War", "User is pro-choice" -- those things have to do with beliefs, and my beliefs are totally irrelevant to creating an encyclopedia. The balance of the consensus (supported, for what it's worth, by the great and powerful Jimbo) on Wikipedia seems to be that opinion userboxes are detrimental -- and that opinion-based groupings of editors are as well, on general principle. My personal opinion is that it's kinda silly -- people will naturally form affinity groups, and trying to pretend they don't exist by not allowing them to be labelled doesn't really prevent that. But I could easily argue either side of this one. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not calling for an edit war where quickly-assembled idealogical warriors can be search-engined together in a few clicks and then waging epic rhetoric battles, what I am saying is that frankly, I am apalled that there appear to be so few willing to argue a conservative viewpoint on Wikipedia in general. Considering that there are at least roughly as many conservatives as not, there is something wrong here. As you might imagine, liberals are going to have a different worldview than conservatives. You need both liberals and conservatives to truly have a NPOV article. When I am being beat to death by a small group of strident editors, trying to explain a conservative view to a large crowd who seems to think that a non-conservative view is "obvious" and the conservative view is "unusual", having others there to help discuss it, and illustrate what I am failing to state clearly would make for a more balanced article. It's not about POV pushing, it's about truly NPOV consensus reached by people with different backgrounds and views. DavidBailey 17:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, and I rather agree with you. Part of the systemic bias of Wikipedia means conservatives -- in particular, American conservatives -- are under-represented. I don't think the solution is to have Wikipedia-supported "conservative clubs", though; informal association should work adequately. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps so. I would appreciate your support for the soon-to-be-created Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism. I promise I'll try to use what meager influence I have to keep it from turning into an edit war party, and I'll try to take your hints in the future about shutting up. DavidBailey 18:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Trying to maintain NPOV on something you are passionate about is the most challenging task on Wikipedia -- and can be the most satisfying. Good luck -- I'll keep an eye on what you do in that direction. Trust me, though, I'll be picky as all hell about POV there. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you know if you play advanced guitar or do you belive you play advanced guitar, because how good a peson is, is based on their own opinion, and opinions are beliefs.--^TheNation 19:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. Then for better examples I should simply have used "User plays guitar". I'll remember that next time I feel a need to make this argument. Thanks! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you realize your mistake and fix it, we are all fine.--^TheNation 01:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more investigation, and Kaseryn is having some debate on this "Prussian Blue" talk page. I cannot understand why, as it really shouldn't even be in Wikipedia. However, what I objected to is that the discussion has somehow done a quantum leap onto the Holocaust page. And when someone tried to carry on this debate, Kaseryn defended this person. If you look at the Prussian Blue page, Kaseryn has also defended others in this way. The holocaust is a serious topic, and I believe this sort of debate has no place on it. It is also a waste of time. Wallie 00:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You're mistaking "defending a person" for "criticizing an uncivil editor" twice, I think. If someone says "you are an idiot" around here, the proper response is a chide, even if the subject really is an idiot. And -- just what page really shouldn't be on Wikipedia? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the "Prussian Blue" page should be on Wikipedia. I have also had dealings with this person on other pages. He switches from one side of the debate to the other. But his true position is revealed over time. When problematical statements are taken away from an article, he wants them put back. I really don't think this sort of disruption should occur on the holocaust page. You think that I am "out of line". I know you are an administrator, but that does not necessarily mean that you are correct. I was well aware that I might get some flak. This quite often happens when people try to honestly sort out a problem before it starts. Wallie 01:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why should that page not be on Wikipedia? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between remaining and still remaining: Yes, I do hear a difference. Still remanining implies that it won't be so in the future. Remaining means that whatever is remaining has gotten away and is no longer in jeopardy.

BTW: thanks for keeping close guard on the Holocaust Denial article. Dietwald 05:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'd like to know if the section Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves can deal with Organizations as well. I'm having a small dispute on the Ordo Templi Orientis talk page about this. A few Freemasons dont like that the OTO claim that they are, or were Freemasons. Thanks. Zos 14:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How about you summarize the (somewhat lengthy and I'm lazy) argument for me? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Well, a few people (Blueboar and ALR) who dont like some of the info on the article want it removed, but the statements can be sourced to one or both of the OTO's main web sites (UK and US). They also wish to add couter-critique yet have brought no sources for fact checking as of right now. Although I wasnt looking for mediation or bringing and admin in, I figured since I've alrady ran into you on the Aleister Crowley talk page I'd ask you the question. So let me rephrase: Can a main website be used to site its main article on Wikipedia, as it does in fact say that its for personal use (its not clear for organizations), but in this case I'd rather ask someone who has been at this longer. Thanks for your time. Zos 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer simply is "yes", as long as it's clear that "this is what OTO says about OTO". By the way -- WAY too many Freemasonry references in that article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thats not my doing, I'm actually just starting on that page. Thanks for the info, very much appreciated. Zos 19:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon... thank you for your input. From my perspective, the number of references to Freemasonry is exactly the underlying problem. However, I am sure we can work with Zos and the other editors to solve that. The argument that is going on relates not to the OTO web site (I agree that the OTO web site can be used to reference what OTO says)... the argument is about the use of a website from one of the Masonic Grand Lodges to verify and cite a statement about what that Grand Lodge says about OTO. Zos seems to think that Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves means that the web site of an organization (in this case United Grand Lodge of England) can never be used... except in an article about that organization. Whereas, I point out that WP:RS#Personal websites as primary sources says it can be used as long as it is being used as a primary source for what UGLE sais (which it is). Also, there is some question as to whether the UGLE web site counts as a "personal" or "self-published" site. Feel free to pop over and give your oppinion. Blueboar 15:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got this message in my inbox when I signed on to wikipedia today before I logged in. What is that about? ColdRedRain 22:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imacomp didnt bother to read anything, so he reverted. And if you check the history, he even removed other additions I made that were cited. I cannot revert it b/c I am already at my 24 hour limit. Can you please explain it to him what eh just did? Zos 19:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...! Zos 22:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's got an outstanding 3RR violation at the bottom of WP:AN/3RR. Are you an admin? -999 (Talk) 16:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it now, should be done in ... 10 minutes Seraphim 16:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to your patience and helpful mediating, Zos and I have reached agreement on what to include and not include in the article. That's one issue resolved! Good luck with the rest... and again, thanks. Blueboar 18:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you've issued a formal warning to this anonymous user. As much as I hate to see people blocked, he posted some pretty blatant vandalism on the article Hugo Chavez and claimed that "I'll keep on writting until you get this f----d up article out of Wikipedia." I figured since you'd already issued him an official warning, I'd mention it to you.

Sorry if that put a damper on your wiki day :( - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 01:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont invade my life Dragon Emperor 03:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might need help with user 999. He wont let me add historical information to the Ordo Stella Matutina article. He then made a seperate page for the Stella Matutina, in which case I suggested a merge. Its getting out of hand because just before this, I had to fill in a citation upon his request for Regardie being a member of both AA and OTO. I think this is shading into him disputing this merge. Zos 17:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm confused because he just redirected the page he created as a disamb for me, to the Golden Dawn main article! (which was Stella Matutina) What do I have to do to contribute to the history of the order? Zos 19:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is possibly another user:lightbringer sock on the freemasonry page under the name user:Thunderbird15. I have requested a checkuser on him, so you can check out Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thunderbird15 for the full reasoning. This user has also made personal attacks against members of the masonic fraternity, i.e. "If the criteria is factual accuracy then there shouldn't be any entries on Freemasonry on Wikipedia as the entire history and teachings of this group is a farcical fabrication. Factuality in Freemasonry? Please give me a break!" which breaks NPA under "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." I know you've dealt with user:lightbringer in the past, so I figured I'd go to you. Thanks Chtirrell 15:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's see how the RFCU works out. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, that was easy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a formal complaint with the intent to get JzG desysopped. Why did you cross my lines? Now, I will have to place your name on the problem users page. ackoz 16:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are spoiling my plan of acting out the wrong version policy. Anyway, I was just kidding. ackoz 16:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed :)

'tis amusing in an unusual way though. ALR 17:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, however re: Copied from my talk, "It's possible I'm missing something, but I just compared the two versions of your response, and other than what you've added in the repost, I don't see any differences other than whitespace between them (i.e., there's no textual difference.) Did I miss some actual changes ALR made? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC) ALR shows in the History page as altering my statement. QED. Imacomp 17:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)" And "Incohernt ramblings" continue Imacomp 18:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Josh: There are at least two new editors at talk:Martin Luther suggesting we set aside the Luther and the Jews section and work on the rest. I've made a proposal to return the paragraph to where it was before the latest Sturm und Drang, igore it for awhile and work through the rest of the article. Since McCain is banned a week, this is a golden moment. Would you weigh in on it, since I will not be drawn in by Doright, who is piling on, or Mantmorland, who simply wants his way and doesn't care who he insults. I've come to you since I know you will not be seduced by my considerable charm and control of the dark side of the Force. 8-) --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 14:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CTS, it really ill-behooves you to include ad hominems concerning third parties in user pages. Please don't. I was brought in as a third pair of eyes on the On the Jews and Their Lies article, and even received a Barnstar from the aforementioned McCain for my efforts. But now I see that I have been turned into the devil, with the now-blocked McCain vandalizing my user page, and now you are smearing me in various pages. I've requested in the past that you cease focusing on editors with whom you disagree, and I request that again.--Mantanmoreland 14:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JP, is it possible to delete this page, which I created by mistake? [3]. Is there a way I could have deleted it? --Drboisclair 19:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Under WP:MOSBIO#Honorific_prefixes, it says "In cases where the person is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title (whether earned or not), it may be included as described above." From my understanding, most individuals know him with the honorific. The Wikipedia Naming conventions (names and titles) for Clerical names doesn not specify the use of "Reverend" or "Father". I guess it is up to the people who mantain an article to use whatever convention with "Reverend" and "Doctor". However, there have been many articles I have run across which include this honorific such as William S. Bowdern, Gong Shengliang, Samuel Seabury, John Hagee, Jack W. Hayford, Estus Pirkle, Frank K. Allan, and Larry Davis. Then again, there are articles that do not. Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., in particular, was known as the leader of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. He also graduated with theology degrees and was a minister. Hence, becuase of his role as a clergyman, his education, and the common convention for his name, I believe that "Reverend" and "Dr." are appropriate honorifics for this page. I hope this helps! Have a good day. Jdas07 23:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he was not known with the honorific in the past. However, from my understanding, most individuals know him with the honorific today, as textbooks in the American education system include the honorific. I hope this helps! Thanks! Jdas07 23:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Thanks for filling me in on that and I apologize for my misunderstanding. You can remove the honorific "Dr." if you would like. However, since their is no naming convention for "Reverend", I would prefer to keep it for the reasons I listed in my first response. Thanks for all your help and concern! Jdas07 23:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-I just wanted to know why you reverted my edit on eBay. I included uBid, a new article on one of eBay's competitors in the "see also" section. I thought this would be alright because of the commonalities in their business model. If this was an incorrect place for the link, I understand, just let me know if it was because of something else. Thanks---Gpyoung ^talk 01:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a sentence about eBay's main competitors in the article; you could mention it there if uBid qualifies as one of those main competitors. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you want to close a move box, you have to add {{subst:vb}}, and that is all I did. It is not the whole page that is the discussion, only a section, and there is immediatly under that another poll (not listed at WP:RM. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{subst:vt}} '''reason''' ~~~~ and {{subst:vb}}, those work. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve many of these: not as just this one species, but of every kind in the genus. Thank you for your help to all of us at all times.--Drboisclair 02:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that the tag was perhaps justified - the article is slightly PoV, perhaps not as much as others, but it certainly doesn't show all PoVs... I retract my revert however, seeeing that you're an admin, and probably slightly better at the rules than me ;-) HawkerTyphoon 22:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See post on bottom of talk page. - MSTCrow 07:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping you could have a look at this AFD and leave a comment? It's not going anywhere at the moment! Thanks... HawkerTyphoon 14:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really starting to get tired of your personal vendetta against me. It's not spamming because: 1. The link is NOT COMMERCIAL, i.e. it provides no services for any fees, therefore it also 2. cannot be advertising. I added links to The Crux on pages such as The Greco-Persian conflict, Ezra, Nehemaiah, and Artaxerxes because there are specific chapters in the Book that present a very interesting Historical analysis of those particular topics, with specific reference to the history of the class conflict between the Jewish people and the Greeks and Romans around the time of the 1st Century. What on earth is spam about that? The only true guidelines about adding external links are that they cannot be the person's own website, they cannot be commercial links, and the amount of one particular viepoint should not dominate if that viewpoint is out of the mainstream. I have broken none of those rules. Ryan4^Talk 18:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has started again here about whether or not Irving is a historian; I'd appreciate it if you could add your thoughts. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, edits, and connections to other pages. It's fun to know that page was found so quickly! AMM 06:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• You're welcome! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jp, I reverted because it's an IP range that has been associated with the banned Amorrow, and it's the kind of post he tends to make. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Say, Josh... I've been working on Fort Vincennes and something very odd is going on with the footnoting. I do not see any of the usual missing opening and or closing tags. Can you figure it out? Thanks! Bob --CTSWyneken^(talk) 01:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --CTSWyneken^(talk) 02:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also take a look at: User talk:CTSWyneken/LC Sandbox? I'm working on an alternative way to find categories and stubs. I've done a few excursions with the random articles search, looking for articles uncategorized and stubs unmarked. I've found it maddeningly difficult to locate appropriate ones. Not suprising -- librarians discovered 150 years ago that subject description is, well, subjective. It's why there are call numbers and subject headings (thesauruses). Anyway, for my purposes, if not the whole wiki's, I'm trying to work up a Library of congress-based list of cats, stubs and main articles.

Anyway, what I need to have you look at is this: I've tried to figure out how to use CSS attributes to change the color of a visited link on these pages to something a bit more visible -- say, green. Can't figure out how to do this. Any ideas? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just on these pages. On web pages, you typically put a call for a standard stylesheet and then put instructions on the page that modify it. These instructions, in turn, can be modified in line, typically with a style= atrribute. What I'm trying to do is to change the color of visited links (probably unvisited ones too) to something that stands out better. I don't know that I would recommend that as a permenant thing if it goes beyond my userspace. For now it simply a convience thing. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your tip! --physicq210 01:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just placed a source on the AC page, and is not using it. Whats more, its said to be in German anyway. Am I wrong to think that only English sources should be used? When you get a chance, please respond on my talk page. SynergeticMaggot 21:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The very last one in the references section. It was added before you reverted. SynergeticMaggot 21:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found that characterization comical. If you want to read something really amusing, look at the Criticism needed section on Talk:The Guardian. Then look at the page history on my Tchadienne. Then, finally, look at my post at User talk:Daduzi and my earlier request for assistance on admin intervention. Then, if you took the time to read all that (and you dont have to, I'm merely suggesting that you do for comical relief), you may see why I'm mildly annoyed about the nonsense I've had to listen to over the past two days. Tchadienne 17:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jpgordon

I have read the message, and I will take these advice to heart and continue to improve the quality of edits and contributions I make to Wikipedia. Thank you truly for all of your comments!

Arbiteroftruth 04:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with the language on the sharedIPs, I have started to manually delete some of the texts that makes references to usertalk pages after I put the template on the userpage. So, the problem is solved without much effort now! Arbiteroftruth 05:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user will not quit. He has vandalized my talkpage numerous times over the past three days

• Today he deleted other users' comments with no explanation[4], protecting my talkpage[5] without any justification, deleting my response to his harassment on my talkpage with the bizarre edit summary "Since you are saying goodbye, let's assume you mean it, eh?", and then leaving this threatening message to intimidate me into leaving[6].

Before that he vandalized my talkpage[7]. Then when I reverted another user assumed he was right and reverted to JzG's version, but realized he was wrong and apologized. I was cordially and said it was alright. JzG has left numerous uncivil comments on my talkpage that can be viewed if one goes through the history of the page. He has also repeatedly been warned. I want him blocked immediately. Tchadienne 22:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Y'know, you've been annoying under every other userid, and you continue to be annoying here. I'm surprised you haven't been outright banned as a nuisance. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you blank [8] huge sections at the end of this article, including news, trivia, bibliography, etc--Crossmr 20:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Grumble grumble firefox bug grumble. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That picture of your backyard. Wow. Thanks for helping out on Israel! --Daniel575 | (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That picture of your backyard. Wow. Thanks for helping out on Israel! --Daniel575 | (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article at Benjamin H. Freedman which seems to be a somewhat illiterate mishmash on a minor anti-Semitic/conspiracy theorist. I notice you had made edits at Anti-Defamation League and related articles - I assume there are people on Wikipedia who are used to dealing with this sort of stuff, and was wondering if you know who I should point at this article? I have no interest in wading through it myself, but it certainly needs attention. - Quietvoice 00:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something to do with Group Zero and [9]...I saw that first version but I hadn't heard about it and didn't really trust the editor. Who knows.. Rx StrangeLove 02:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there were certainly non-boomer hippies, but the hippie movement is generally defined as a youth phenomenon specific to the boomers, as opposed to the Silent Generation and the Beat Generation. I feel that my edit is accurate, but if there is any way of highlighting the continuum between the three generations, I would appreciate your help. —Viriditas | Talk 00:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is awful, which is why I'm trying to improve it. What's more, is that Flower child is a separate article. Since you have an informed opinion, can you give me some recommendations on how to improve it? I mean, there's the obvious copy edits, citation requests, and the like, but I would appreciate some very hard, biting criticism. FWIW, I just arrived and haven't had much to do with it. —Viriditas | Talk 00:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there were certainly non-boomer hippies, but the hippie movement is generally defined as a youth phenomenon specific to the boomers, as opposed to the Silent Generation and the Beat Generation. I feel that my edit is accurate, but if there is any way of highlighting the continuum between the three generations, I would appreciate your help. —Viriditas | Talk 00:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is awful, which is why I'm trying to improve it. What's more, is that Flower child is a separate article. Since you have an informed opinion, can you give me some recommendations on how to improve it? I mean, there's the obvious copy edits, citation requests, and the like, but I would appreciate some very hard, biting criticism. FWIW, I just arrived and haven't had much to do with it. —Viriditas | Talk 00:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jp for the unblock my faith in Wikipedia is once again restored. -Theblackbay 10:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome! Glad I could help. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right about the connection being much too tenuous. I don't know if you saw the entry when it arrived, but it was a much longer piece that had an even more tenuous connection to the "Hippie" article. I edited it down, leaving just what you saw, mostly to humor the contributor--figured it didn't hurt anything. Founders4 00:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, do you really think the "Hippie" article is so awful? I read the Britannica article after Viriditas mentioned it, and it really lacked the life of the Wikipidia entry. In general that's what keeps me coming back to Wikipedia as a reference--what the articles lack in perfection, they more than make up for with broad, interesting content. Most reference sources get "dry as toast" after a while--I'll take life over technical quality any day. Founders4 00:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know ahead of time that I'm going to be making what I feel to be an important edit on the Zionism page, an edit that takes into account all of the specific requests for improvement that I've received over the past week or two.

If you disagree with that edit, I'd really appreciate if you discussed, with me and other editors, the grounds for your disagreement on the talk page before reverting my work. That way we can get some back and forth going on the talk page about these important issues and help build a more balanced article. I hope we can begin to bring about more examples of collaborative editing among people with differing viewpoints there. BYT 10:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

) cheers i'm not sure of the vandalisim becasue I did n't see it thanks for the good deed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theblackbay (talk • contribs) 08:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]