John Z

Welcome aboard! I noticed high quality of your contributions and wanted to commend you for making WP better. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

By the quality of your edits and willingness to cooperate with others, I see a sign that you will be a great editor in the near future. Welcome aboard.

Guy Montag 07:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the start of the 6 day war page, good job. --Apyule 05:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Help please. On Ronn Torossian page there are sockpuppets seeking to destroy and I saw you helped previously. Can you assist ASAP pls ? --[[User: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binyaminyigal (talk • contribs) 10:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

18 November 2024
News and notes: Open letter to WMF about court case breaks one thousand signatures, big arb case declined, U4C begins accepting cases In the media: Summons issued for Wikipedia editors by Indian court, "Gaza genocide" RfC close in news, old admin Gwern now big AI guy, and a "spectrum of reluctance" over Australian place names Recent research: SPINACH: AI help for asking Wikidata "challenging real-world questions" News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Endowment audit reports: FY 2023–2024 Traffic report: Well, let us share with you our knowledge, about the electoral college
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

I see you reverted my edit to the Mustafa Kemal Atatürk article when I said there was no evidence that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was a Muslim. I thought there wasn't but I'll take your word for it there is in Atatürk: The Rebirth of a Nation. However, I would like to know what you meant by pp.4,217, I thought pp. meant a page but obviously not. Could you tell me what you meant by that, what part of the book provides the evidence should I acquire the book and the exact words in that book that you think are proof Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was a Muslim. --Supertask 04:41, 10 April 2008 (GMT)

""He was born an Ottoman Moslem, of lower middle class family and ostensibly Turkish stock.""

A newborn can't accept the metaphysical tenets of islam or any religion, so this just refers to the religion of the family he was born into.

"On p. 216-7: After noting how the Sheikh of Islam had pronounced a fatwa on the Nationalists, Kinross says "In creating it [ an elected national assembly] Kemal must reply in kind to the Islamic manifestoes of Constantinople. Thus he still acted outwardly in the name of the Caliphate, whose abolition was his ultimate objective. With every appearance of defernce he mobilized the ulema, the religious authority of Angora, which now issued a counterblast to Constantinople with a fetva of its own." "... to encourage such deputies as might be reluctant to come to the newly elected Assembly, he thus circulated throughout the country his own proclamation which outdid the Sultan-Caliph himself in its Islamic invocations." Later, p.386 Kinross mentions how "an emissary, claiming to represent Indian and Egyptian Moslems" "suggested to Kemal that he himself should become the Caliph.""

This shows nothing of his personal beliefs, just that he used Islam politically because it was useful/needed.

I'm not stating he wasn't a Muslim, just that it is not known with certainty what his religious beliefs were. --Supertask 01:45, 11 April 2008 (GMT)

So what is this new quote from Atatürk from page 6 of Atatürk: The Rebirth of a Nation? You said go to talk to see it but I can't find it. --Supertask 01:53, 16 April 2008 (GMT)

John, I appreciate your edits, but I don't think putting sources in edit comments is a good thing. Rather, I think they should be added to the article itself, ideally as footnotes. Editors who come along later are unlikely to look back through an edit history to try to understand that you've actually provided a source in an edit summary. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've put together a little poll at Talk:Terrorism regarding the "lone wolf" section. Your input would be appreciated. Thx. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi. You seem to be working on a number of substantial Palestine-related rewrites, so I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Notice board for Palestine-related topics and Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Palestine. - Mustafaa 22:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The 13 Israeli Arabs sentence was already there, I just added the part about Asil. Yeah I agree that is a pretty weak sentence, I guess what I was trying do was add another sentence to emphasize the significance of his death to his Jewish and Arab friends while maintaining an optimistic yet neutral POV - please feel free to clean that part up, my mind is blanking. As for Azmi, I don't think he was actually hurt then, but there was an attempt by a Jewish mob to burn his house down. He apparently was injured a couple of weeks ago though, during a sit-in to protest a house demolition in Haifa [1]. Thanks again Ramallite ^(talk) 06:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, the civil administration was established later, but since the whole thing was military rule in one way or another, that little fact slipped my mind. Thanks for the note, I fixed the text now. Ramallite ^(talk) 5 July 2005 05:38 (UTC)

In case I haven't said this before, please let me compliment you on the quality of your edits in what are normally extremely contentious articles. Please accept this barnstar from me Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

 

I thought I recalled you saying this wasn't clear; could you please comment at Talk:West Bank#Pakistan? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi John Z, That's a good find. I was quite surprised but the source you give seems impeccable. --Zero 02:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi -- I just noticed that some wholesale vandalism of the History of South Africa in the apartheid era a couple of days ago went undetected until today. An anon replaced the entire text of the article with the old text of the Apartheid article, including the bit about "diaspora Jews." Since this seems to have slipped under everyone's radar (including mine), and I don't know who has History of South Africa in the apartheid era on their watchlist, I thought I'd give you a heads up. --Bcrowell 18:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

The 1958 convention could be used as evidence of customary international law, but Egypt would still only be in violation of customary international law, not the treaty itself. An argument could reflect this, but it's probably easier to omit references to the treaty altogether, as it complicates the issue for most people and is indeed anachronistic. --Cybbe 14:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

If you are referring to your draft, I think that is a pretty good version although it includes too much from the history of Shechem. I would be happy with that version with a few edits (such as a shortening of the info on Shechem).Heraclius 18:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

thanks for letting me know, I've reverted back and reprotected it at the correct version. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:59, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your contibution and support in the discussion pages. --Yodakii 10:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

John, would you mind taking a look at the Territories under Israeli control article? I'd like to ensure that the issue is properly represented, and, being a knowledgable editor regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, I thought you'd be a good candidate for doing that. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks John, I'm confident you'll be able to help sort things out and improve the article. I'm sorry to hear you haven't been well though, hope that's better soon. I didn't understand the "ill-gotten gains" part, though. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

John,

Thanks for the tutorials and welcome message. Zeq 16:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

John, I sent you an e-mail on Friday, which I'm assuming you haven't seen based on your responses. I'll do my best to reply to you tonight. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

You're the second person today who didn't receive an e-mail I sent via Wikipedia. I've sent it again, but if there's a problem with that way of sending things, you may not receive this one either. Anyway, it just said I'd try to reply to you on Saturday or Sunday, and that I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you. I'm also not sure what the translation sentence was saying, so I made it invisible until we can figure out what we're doing. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I quite liked your "crazed vehemence." It was kind of stirring. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I need your help to prevent the vandalism. Thanks. Zeq 22:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi John,

Thanks for your comments.

I agree about your advice that I will try to work theminto my editing. But I think that on the legal issue you made a mistake.

You wrote:

""although both courts rule according to the same Int'l law" - of course the ICJ used only international law, while the Israeli court can use Israeli law too. The ICJ unanimously agreed that the 4th Geneva Convention applies de jure to these territories - this is a major legal, not factual difference between it and the Israeli court. The Israeli court may say different, but practically all international legal experts disagree with it here. "

This is not true. The Israeli court decided to apply the 4th Geneva convention and it is sais so in the decision

Please read the decision, it is based on solid application of Int'l law and on facts. That is all. The only difference between the courts are the facts and the decision clearly show that.

If you think differently, please find a source (legal source) that sais so - I am very intrested to read such source.

Thanks, Zeq 18:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi John,

Thanks for your quick note.

Please assume my good faith AND that I also know what I am talking about. You are correct about the position of the state of Israel (the goverment) but you are not corrfect about the court.

The court addressed exactlu your concerns and sais that even if Israel does not accept that Geneva apply in the territories Israel (must) act as if it apply. So I suggest you read the decision, some of the best legal minds in the world (Barak) have wrote it.

In the prefix and in section 14 they discuss why the Geneva apply and later they rule according to it in many sections:

14, 16, 17 35, 37 48,49, 50, 26, 95 and more......

Best,

Zeq 19:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

PS I would appriciate help with the solving the balnket revert by well respected editor. This is not the wikipedia policy (I hope). I am doing my best to contribute from my extensive knowledge on the barrier to this article and encyclopedia. I am doing so without using "original research" although I have a lot first hand knowledge based on my work with the UN on this issue.

Hi John, just wanted to thank you for your comments about me on Zeq's page and your help in trying to resolve this matter. I think Zeq, being new here, is struggling with POV, OR, and a language barrier, but it looks like he's slowly coming along just like most of us did. Thanks again! Ramallite ^(talk) 20:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ramallite Zeq 19:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Ramallite? I'm concerned with the POV expressed by some of the oppose votes. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Do you think you could help here? I wrote this off the top of my head to replace a POV-filled article whose useful content was near nil. I have limited references available to me to fix it. Palmiro | Talk 21:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

If you have a minute, please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International law. We're getting things off the ground, hoping to eventually build a community of contributors interested in international law. Yeu Ninje 04:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

... facilitating quality wiki work.

I have synthesized a wiki at http://www.wikimodel.com for modeling causality. I would greatly appreciate additions to the work in progress! Thank you --Dialectic 00:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Greetings. I thought you may be interested to learn that I translated most of חוק רמת הגולן as well as its three broad provisions. Regards, El_C 04:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please take a look at my last posting to Talk:List of military occupations#World War II. You were right I was wrong. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

You seem to have done some good and reasonably neutral work at Sabra and Shatila massacre and other related topics. Could you take a look at my question at Talk:Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre#Confusing_paragraph and see if you have any insight? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 04:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science/sociology. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category [2]. It meets definitions set in the articles Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, however, there are several self-proclaimed patriots who watch BTP who refuse to recognise the fact. The simple criteria for terrorism generally seem to be intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared. Some users would rather use recent acts of terrorism as a yardstick, rather than using a firm definition, and hence lose their ability to discuss matters calmly. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 05:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

You're back! I'm so pleased to see that, and thanks for letting me know. I hope you have managed to put the family issue behind you, and are doing better now. Look forward to seeing you around. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/British Mandate of Palestine, and choose whether or not you wish to become a party to the case. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. --Zero^talk 12:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

WikiProject Palestine is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Palestine. Ahlan wa Sahlan! (Welcome!)

Thank you for that. Tiamut 22:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
Thank you for your reading !

• yes, refugee would be far more better
  

Don't hesitate to comment/correct/modify what you consider a matter in the article !
I wish our discussions here based on this work will be used to improve both our wikipedias :-)
Alithien 07:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Thank you very much for your kind comments.

Don't hesitate to proceed to the modification you consider useful ! :-)

I am not fully satisfied of the english version of tne french article yet

(even if it-is-not-a-genitive made a WONDERFUL work) !!!.

I realize how hard it is to translate subtle meanings and sentences.

And if I perceive some differences I am unable to correct them or even sometimes just to explain them.

Regards, Alithien 08:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, John. I've posted a proposal for a partial rewrite of the Arab-Israeli conflict article at the article's talk page. I'd appreciate your opinion. Thanks, Gatoclass 01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your input John.

I feel that you should try adding your material, most of which is good, to what is already there, which tends to the opposing pov and then try to achieve consensus on what to get rid of once it gets too big.

Not really interested in that as an idea, for a number of reasons, but see my next response.

Another thought - I don't really understand why there is a separate article on the history of the conflict. POV forking danger, and the History article has far too much on the pre 1948 stuff, where there was little international component, and Israel didn't exist so there couldn't be any conflict with it strictly speaking. IMHO, the articles should be merged

I'm inclined to agree, and I did initially consider an AFD, but I have my doubts I could get it through as one party or another would probably squawk about its importance.

So given that we're probably stuck with this article, I think the idea must be to try and keep it as brief as possible to give it some sort of reason for existence or separate identity apart from the History article. Although your comment about using it as a sort of shortcut to various links makes very good sense, and now I'm wondering if perhaps I shouldn't have approached the job more from that angle. Although that might still be possible with the proposed version I guess. Anyway, I guess my current proposal won't do any harm as a temporary fix at least.

Regarding your first point about merging the existing content with the new proposal, I don't think that's going to work but I do think the existing content probably has a place somewhere in the History article where it would be more suitable. I'd like to do an overhaul of the History article too but I thought it might be easier to try and straighten this one up a bit first.

and as he explains later, "land expropriations accompanying settlements"

Yes I've always had the impression that that was the case, your input at the article talk page on this point might be helpful :)

A strange thing is that some articles seem to be superfashionable and attract scores of editors, e.g. 6 day war, while others first intifada, Suez crisis, etc. get only a few a year if that, and easily become POV and bad.or strange.

LOL, I often reflect on the same phenomenon. There are a plethora of basic articles on the Iz-Pal conflict badly in need of work, and 90% of available editors seem to spend most of their time haggling over the "Israeli apartheid" page, that I suspect gets only a fraction of the page hits the more mainstream articles get. It's just bizarre.

A few other factual errors, Lebanon and Israel have never made peace (except for the old 83-84 abrogated treaty).

I had a feeling that was the case, I guess I don't really think of Lebanon as a combatant in the conflict, it's really not much more than a passive victim of foreign and non-state player agendas isn't it? And to tell the truth, I sort of threw that "Syria is the only country not to make peace" bit as a way of balancing up the narrative a tad. I guess now I'll have to try and rethink it, dammit.

You perhaps imply that terrorism was a real cause of the 82 war, (as it certainly was of the 78 war, which was probably intentionally provoked by the PLO.) when it just wasn't as there was next to no crossborder terrorism to speak of

That was a case of throwing a bone to the opposition. "Next to no terrorism" is not quite the same as "no terrorism" and I'm sure the pro-Israeli editors would complain if terrorism wasn't included as a cb. So I thought it wisest not to belabour the point. I was at pains though, to say something about "growing PLO influence", because although I'm not certain of it, my reading suggests to me that Israel's real agenda was arguably to stop the PLO taking over the country and turning it into a de facto Palestinian state.

One more thing. I've been sort of fooling around trying to organize a coherent narrative for this page and the history page, but I'm having a little trouble getting to grips with the exact reasons for the breakdown of the peace process after the '67 war, although I'm starting to get a better handle on it. If you'd like to give me the benefit of your thoughts sometime regarding this very important stage in the conflict, I'd be very interested to hear them. Regards, Gatoclass 09:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi again John! GHCool has been hassling me to address my concerns regarding this page so he can take the neutrality template off. Accordingly, I've revised my proposed rewrite of the Six Day War section as an initial step toward this goal. In particular, I've added a new section on the failure of peace talks in the wake of the war which I think is an issue important (and contentious) enough to warrant a reasonable degree of discussion. But I've also extended the initial discussion of the war itself a little. Quite frankly, I think we can afford to have entries a little longer than the existing ones in an article of this type, and given the inordinate length of the specialized pages on these conflicts, I think a more comprehensive coverage on this page is well justified.

Anyhow, I would again appreciate your feedback (preferably on the article talk page where everyone can access it). Regards, Gatoclass 06:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hereby the link that violates article 16 of the Statute of the Court http://www.law.leidenuniv.nl/oratieowada.jsp Owada holds a professional post at this University. Most of these Judges are also heavily involved in arbitration, this is against the same rule. You can check there CVs to have your evidence. The other things were in various newspapers.

The amount of cases can be verified at the ICJ's website. It is not steadily increasing but decreasing; at least the last seven years.

You should read their budgets (requests).

What are your sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leatherneck121 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

You don't provide me with any information about your sources! Owada's position is confirmed by the ICJ itself in various emails to me. I think you should be banned, putting lies on Wikipedia and removing the truth. What do you know about the ICJ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leatherneck121 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The question is does WP use the date the book shows up on some bookseller's shelf as the date of publication or the official date of publication as stated by the publisher. The official date of publication for the book is 2007-09-04. Your bookseller might have put it on the shelf prior to the embargo date but does that really make it the actual publication date?

A quibble to be sure but it would be nice to be consistent and I would suggest using the publisher's own date of publication rather than when someone saw it on the shelf. IMVHO anyway. P.S. - I'm not going to change the date back to September -- I'll leave it for you to decide/change. Gep3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gep3 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your kind and helpful comments on my talk page. Gep3 16:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

please read Abdullah I before considering reverting again. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

This change is problematic because the Jerusalem Law did not both the piece about East Jerusalem and the West Bank; only the former. Thus you can't say the Law "reaffirmed this measure". -- tariqabjotu 19:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

You reverted an edit on George Galloway, with an edit summary implying that I had made the edit you reverted[3]. I did not make that edit, and in fact agree with your position on this; my edit was a completely separate removal of an irrelevant snide remark about Galloway. Please check the edit history more carefully before making such accusations in future! Thanks. RolandR 19:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

As your edit summary stated that you were unclear about whether your third opinion on the Hebron Massacre issue followed the rules or not, I took the liberty to respond positively here. It is an excellent opinion, and it is always good to see an expert in a particular area of Wikipedia policy responding to requests for opinions in that area. User:Krator (t c) 02:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I have created an article about the UN Parliamentary Assembly, a proposed world body that would be similar to Europarl. Please review and vote on the WP:FAC nomination. Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your thoughtful note on my Talk: page, John. I see you've been away for a while yourself; I hope you are well, and return soon. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Eleland has made an edit that seems to be a rather elegant solution to the problem. Thanks for explaining the history of the discussion at that page. Happy editing! Tiamut^talk 18:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello John, six months ago you debated the title of this article. You might be interested to know that this debate has been re-opened (not by me) in the talk page of the article. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

on Talk:Amdo. I will keep the points about language in mind. I grew frustrated because I had run into Blnguyen acting in concert with Khoikhoi in exactly the same way before (on Qoigyijabu I think it was) - where I forgot myself and got blocked for 3RR, so I wasn't particularly pleased to see the two of them doing the same thing again. I will, however, keep to non-emotive language from now on. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I see you have taken the tags off this article because there was "nothing on talk." I have been revising the article to make it NPOV, and have made several comments on talk in the last few weeks, but received no response. I will continue working on this article as time allows (and the end of the semester is drawing near...). Cheers.Academic38 (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the kind words on my talk page. I will continue work on this article. Cheers.Academic38 (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would you like me to archive your talk page?--~SRS~ 02:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why do you think the notes on Nachum Goldmann's obstruction of one of the most important Holocaust rescue groups, Hillel Kook's, is problematic? His obstruction and lack of significant positive action on behalf of his fellow Jews is viewed as a critically important aspect of his life. After all he was one of he most important free world Jewish leaders during the Holocaust. I'd like to work on this with you to assure this aspect of his life is treated truthfully and given appropriate weight.

I disagree that Goldmann is not responsible for apparent corruption and certainly lack of transparency in the large and wealthy organization he set up: the Claims Conference. If a building, state, organization collapses the architect is often held to be partially or fully liable. Similarly, if a complex system holds up and even improves over time that is to the architect's credit. Emesz 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted responses on my Talk page. Should it be posted here? Emesz 23 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emesz (talk • contribs) 06:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

John, hearing from you is a godsend. I have to admit I don't have a full mastery of Wikipedia rules regarding sourcing but I have tried to read all citations presented by Duplicity & to me they appear either irrelevant or questionable. I'd like to figure out ways to include references to my blog when the material is appropriate to the article & adheres to Wikipedia sourcing rules. If you could help me by working with me on this I'd be very grateful.

I use Wikipedia as a source in my blog & would like to see Wikipedia use my blog as a source when that is appropriate.

A good example of this problem is that I linked my blog post about JDL member & accused terrorist Earl Krugel to his W. article. The reason I linked is because my post has a first hand recollection by me of a personal interaction with Krugel in which he threatened me in the aftermath of the assassination of Alex Odeh, a crime of which the FBI suspected him of complicity. Duplicity removed it claiming I couldn't insert a link to my own blog. If a first hand recollection about the subject of an article is considered a questionable source then what is Wikipedia coming to?

I also need to figure out how to deal with Duplicity who seems to see it as his/her role to "stalk" my Wikipedia contributions & revert them.

I don't always look at my messages in my Talk pg. so if you want to conduct this conversation via e mail mine is richards1052 at comcast dot net Richard (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your kind words John. I hope I can find some time to be useful. --Ian Pitchford (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

thank ou for putting Medoff into context, I wandered into this sideways (I went with friends to see The Acomplices last year where I heard Medoff speak, a couple off days ago I put up a page about A Flag is Born, added the Accomplices to the Hollel Kook page, and saw that somebody was trying to remove Medoff's page, which seemed absurd to me. You understand the politics of the revisionists much better than I do - I hope that you will take the time to improve his page.Fan613 (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Fan613Reply

Thanks for your note, and thank you for your recent edits to the article. I realize that Roy is notable, and that even a tour guide refers to her as the leading expert on Gaza, but frankly I think that a clean slate might be a better starting point for a biography than what we had. That's why I nominated the article for deletion.

Today's version is a sanitized copy of the article. This is the version American Clio and its sock wanted, with a section about how Roy's "Scholarly research" has "misunderstood Hamas" (sourced only to Roy's papers) and a section about Roy's "Political positions" that included the fact that she hasn't taken a position concerning divestment from Israel. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well at least I managed to get one vote :) Thanks for being number one John.

I haven't actually submitted the RFA yet, I'm waiting for Bencherlite to co-nom, but I guess it doesn't hurt to cast a pre-poll vote :) Gatoclass (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

John Z, just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Just a word of thanks for getting my RFA off to such a flying start John. I was also particularly pleased to see the first vote coming from a guy whose opinion I very much respect. So as a small token of thanks, this round's on me. Bottoms up! ;) Gatoclass (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

thanks for the advice and for weighing in for the discussion. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I doubt if you really intended to delete my entire user page. Perhaps you could ask the question again. DGG (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your input; there are few truly neutral editors there and your moderation is much appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

For the record, I can access scholarly databases, and I can fwd you pdfs of Engel's article, Cienciala's review of it and anything else you'd like.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Urngh, I'm starting to hate that name! Hi JohnZ, thank you for adding the times obituary of this lady at the AfD and the talk page. Oddly, the one at AfD works, but the (Talk) leads to a no-can-do at the NYTimes. Don't know why this is because they look the same to me. You mentioned there were 18 refs to her back to 1899 and I was wondering how you found these without being a plutocrat. Can you let me know how? Thanks, Julia Rossi (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much for your help, : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help! 79.78.65.89 (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your comments at discussion of Fear. Could you take a look at a (relatively short ATM) neutrality dispute (about one sentence) here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your reply; could you also comment in the thread above the one you commented at? Those are two very different issues, and I am more concerned about the first one than about the second one.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC

Thank you for Your input indeed. I'm also very interested in sorting the mess in this article. It would be very nice if You could state Your opinion on issues I've stressed in my reply to Your analysis. If you could stick with topic for longer, until we'll sort it out, it would be very helpful. Thanks. M0RD00R (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate the apology and accept it. Would you mind refactoring "Jaakobou could think about the site's & source's reliability seriously for even a minute" to something that doesn't suggest I approve of JewsAgainstZionism.com (even for a minute), but rather I was only willing to search if the material they posted happened, on this extremely rare occassion, to be correct?
Thanks!!! Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi John.

I've responded to your comments on the PR situation here. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I saw that, but I remain unconvinced. It looks like what we used to call fax lore back in the day. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Appreciate the kind words, if you're doing any more work on chapter VII I am doing a large piece of work on it, so any content etc. you find would be really useful. :) --Penny (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks indeed John. I am ever in debt to those who can refer me to some illuminating article or book by a trenchant analyst that can sweep the minefield of our conceptual and linguistic confusions by mapping the terrain with precision. My gratitude, once more. Regards Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand the objection some people have with "Uprising", which (to me) suggests something un-coordinated/unplanned. In the case of the 2000 Intifada, the violence was triggered (by my understanding) by Sharon at Al-Aqsa and the death of Al-Durrah. For better or worse, each of these was treated as really serious provocations. Meanwhile, terms such as "rebellion", "insurgency", or "insurrection" all suggest actions with significant planning by groups that came together and acted, at least initially, in some coordinated fashion. PR^talk 13:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I responded to (part of) your comment about the annexation of Jerusalem on Talk:Jerusalem (the subject isn't really related to the title of the other IPCOLL sub-page). -- tariqabjotu 17:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding those links at the sources page. Oberiko (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Always a pleasure to see your reasoned comments on an article Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am looking for discussion about some clear inclusion guidelines for In popular culture related content. I would eventually like to make WP:IPC a guideline, but it need more guidance to have any teeth. All thoughts are welcome. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cheshire Cat in popular culture. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your efforts in digging up online refs.As I was blocked for 48 hrs, I could not participate in the discussion and the article was deleted.-Regards-Bharatveer (talk) 07:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi John,
Thanks a lot for providing excellent sources in the deletion discussion of Anandwan (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anandwan). Really appreciate the help. - Electronz (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you again, for your thoughtful and encouraging words. You're a good man :-) - Electronz (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Note Ten new Afds have been listed at, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion. The articles are; Living Essence Foundation, Madhukar (author), Nancy Freeman Patchen, Swami Sundaranand, Linda Johnsen, Luc Venet, William McKay Aitken, Yogi Marlon, Anthony Fernandes, and Vaishnava Center for Enlightenment. Please review. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, can you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_breese and put in your vote to keep or delete, I am rather outnumbered by some non-spiritual bullies, could use someone who has a co-operative energy to look into the matter on a spiritual teacher article. Thanx (SpiritBeing (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing)Reply

Thanks for the heads up. I fixed my comments. Hobit (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was surprised and shocked that so many articles that come up for discussion. AFDs for non-notable holy men can be considered but Some of them like Navnath, Tirtha and Kshetra should have never have come up. I hope that you too keep aan eye on the page. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up. The deletionist appears to be a committed Krishna-consciousness wallah from all their contributions. I flagged up a potential "issue of faith" in the proposal.

Some people just do not have enough to do with the times on their hands ... good luck to you. ----

Thanks John. Not back. I will stick by my declaration. But since this means betraying a loyalty to a project, and to virtual friends dedicated to quality and not propaganda, many of whom show exemplary gifts of energy, insight and rigour, it sticks in my craw, if not my conscience, and so I have decided to keep following the pages, silently, kibitzing with an occasional ref. Were some genius to come up with a new rule barring patently fatuous or factitious cunctator tactics and POV-pushing for I/P articles, warranted by the chronic immiseration of most articles there, I think many productive editors would join me in jumping back in to help out again. Finest regards Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I noticed that you recently signed up to be part of the Article Rescue Squadron at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Members.

If you have not yet added this template to your user page, please do: {{Template:User Article Rescue Squadron}}

There is a whole list of articles which needed rescuing now:

Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics

...can you please take the time and rescue one?

And please watch Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron for ongoing new developments.

Thank you, Article Rescue Squadron member, Inclusionist (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

hi,

i see you removed prod tag from arthur rubin page. i don't know what was notability guideline in the time of previous deletion discussion, but by reading current WP:N (people) guideline, it seems that article should be deleted? he doesn't have any 'significant coverage in secondary sources'. the one source from time magazine arthur said exist was not provided.

Lakinekaki (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

So do you know what other deletion tag should I use? Lakinekaki (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see what you're saying, though after re-reading it there were still a keep and delete vote after your exxtra sources were found. This combined with how the discussion appeared before led me to delete. Hadthe article been expanded and the like with the sources found I may have reconsidered. I'm not quite seeing consensus, though if you wish to DRV i won't stop you. Wizardman 23:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hm, I see what you mean. I'll re-read it and probably relist the debate then to see what happens. Wizardman 00:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi! When you removed the prod, did you happen to catch a good biographical source or two? I prodded it because I found nothing substantial. Thanks in advance! --Stormbay (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for bringing your common sense and neutral point of view to Hinduism articles and AfDs, and for so kindly taming my over-exuberance on the last one. You've surely seen that some parts of the Hinduism world on Wikipedia are a mess of narrow sectarianism (sometimes in good faith) and obstinate POV nudging and pushing. Having someone involved with an understanding of policy and without a predetermined point of view, is sincerely appreciated. best, ~ priyanath ^talk 04:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

And you might enjoy this brand new PBS/NOW article about the "Clicking Swami", who's article we recently saved.[4] ~ priyanath ^talk 05:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding links on the Patrick McGinley article and thereby preventing its deletion. I have been too busy to edit much these days but I created an article for McGinley because I've read his books and he is too good (though strangely ignored by the critics) to not have a listing on Wikipedia. A passive aggressive Wikipedian who had a bone to pick with me tried to delete it before I had time to elaborate the article. Thanks for the good work. o0O [GUTH3] O0o (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you're really intent on defending this article, would you please restore the controversial sections that were edited out in the past week? Controversy is what Alkon is all about -- to write about her without mentioning her intensely controversial and oft-stated opinions is a bit like writing about Edward Teller and not mentioning that he made the H-bomb. Also, your 2 added sources are pretty lame -- one 9 years old that doesn't even load for me, and another 6-year old puff piece from a newspaper that just put her under contract. Cheers. --El Ingles (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Either you have an outstanding memory, or your research before !voting was exceedingly thorough. Either way, impressive! --Dweller (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for going deep into the revision history of Education in the Thirteen Colonies. I just looked at the recent edits and thought, "Why is this article even here?" and added the Prod template. Cheers. --Mosmof (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the help! I was busy with Niobium, Yttrium and Germanium! You saved him! I think there are a lot of biographies of not very notable people in wikipedia, but to make a chemist, which did great work 100 years ago, notnotable, because he is not in the news anymore is a idea I do not like. Most of the next super whatevers have less right to have article than him!--Stone (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I couldn't know, but nevertheless, sorry. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey man, can you please provide some sources to back up this statement? The only criterion of WP:NB that this book could possibly meet states:

The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience.

I'm not so sure of the "zero chance at AFD", and I'd like some sources to verify your claims. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello John. Can you please explain to me why you removed the talk page for the above article. I am in the middle of discussing the state of this article with an administrator, so I would like to know what is happening. Thankyou. Please reply on my talk page. Colliver55 (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Hi as requested I have placed AfD on the article. According to the articles deletion log, the article was nominated for deletion in 2007 and the consensus was deletion. Does the article still require a second AfD process, or can the article be deleted? Please respond on my talk page. Thankyou. Colliver55 (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just wish to say thankyou for your assistance in creating the AfD for Charles Linden. Regards. Colliver55 (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

First I would just like to thank you as one of the few administrators I have experienced who truly understand what I have gone through in posting what I thought was a legitimate page on Wikipedia. 'Exasperated' is a great way to describe what I felt, and after some of the abuse I recieved, so is 'genuinely shocked.' Can I ask your opinion on how to proceed in this matter? This is not a promotional stunt, or a hobby (I can think of better hobbies which don't run in the tens of thousands of dollars and that don't involve the contribution of monster truck veterans and experts!) In all honesty, I felt I could post information on a completely new design of monster truck which will be debuting at a major arena at the start of 2009. Any advice? Kildare2 (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad you thought to look at the underlying wiki code for this article I'd tagged for speedy deletion. No wonder the article looked devoid of context. I'll take the tip, thanks. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi John. It's really nice to have your message of support. I'll give it some thought. I think the crucial thing for me at the moment is how much time I want to spend on the project, when I do also need to get on with my original research. Which is a contribution in a way, because academic outputs can count as reliable sources. Plus I am planning to use Wikiversity with a class, for the first time, which could also take up some of time and potentially be a good way to use the skills I've learnt on WP. Thanks again. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll try and track down the "Thank God for Football" book at the weekend, but I can't promise anything as I've got quite a lot on this weekend..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

He's only edited twice in the last six months, though, so I'm not sure contacting him would yield much in the way of a response......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you added a tag to the talk page of the article on David O'Neil, which I originally created, specifying that the article had at some point in the past been nominated for deletion. I can't find that nomination, though, could you help me find it? Are you sure it wasn't for the comedian David/Dave O'Neil and not the poet? Thanks. Algabal (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I bow my head.Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

'something that no one could have predicted or did predict at the time.' Contextually looks like a ref to the Holocaust, grammatically it turns out to be the Blitzkrieg. On this, sir, you reputation remind unimpugned! I do not believe the Blitzkrieg was forseen. Trotsky of course did predict the Holocaust. He's too much of a rightwinger, if less so than the unspeakable Stalin, for me, but did get somethings right!:) Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the fruitful research for the page George Karakunnel.Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dear John: thanks for your input on my page. A visiting scholar was doing some editing of my page & he may have confused the editors. Is there anything further I should do at this point? Sincerely --Colin A Carter (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I added references and some content from the sources you supplied in the AfD to the Saleem Sinai and Salman Rushdie articles. In fact, there was some good content comparing Rushdie to Saleem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

When you removed the prod, your edit summary said "cf article on school" as part of the reasoning. I'm afraid I don't understand the meaning of this phrase and I would appreciate it if you could explain your intent. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I meant see the Ross School of Business article. It lists all faculty there with endowed chairs, and as one can also check here, he is a "distinguished university professor", although this information was not in the Weick article. Articles on people with such positions are invariably kept at AfD. cf WP:PROF #5. Regards,John Z (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

• I hadn't seen the "cf" before, so I wasn't real sure what you were getting at, thanks for clarifying. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

An article that you have been involved in editing, John Bell (North Carolina politician), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bell (North Carolina politician). Thank you.
Jerzy•t 06:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was stunned to see the discussion on this closed as "no consensus, default to keep", since very few people suggested an outright keep, and most would have been satisfied with a merge. I honestly don't think the closing administrator paid attention to any of the comments. Regardless of how you felt on this issue-- delete, merge, keep -- I think that everyone's comments showed that a lot of people care about this issue, and "no consensus" was similar to a snub. I've asked for a review, and invite everyone to give their two cents worth at [5]. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I have a question. You "deproded" because it was the second time. Yes, the article had been marked with prod before. But in fact, it should had been deleted the first time! On Dec 17 2007, User Picaroon contested the entry because there were no reliable sources. five days passed. No one contested. The article should had been deleted, but nobody did it. Later, user Spacepotato gave links to short news stubs from local newspapers and "deproded" because of that. That is not valid under Wikipedia:Notability, nor Biographies_of_Living_Persons. So, wasn't that just POV or fallacious support? Just want to know. Regards!

As you were involved in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Nisreen El-Hashemite and you commented on User:Paris London’s talk page and so you are still familiar with the topic I thought I let you know I have nominated Mohammed bin Faisal I, Adnan bin Mohammed bin Faisal I and Adel bin Mohammed bin Faisal I for deletion, cheers. - dwc lr (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

First, thanks for your support in helping with this article. Obviously Bali ultimate is out to trash Gomez. That aside to answer a few questions on the talk page, please see this link, [6] Of note, the "Robinson, Carol (March 31, 2006). "Hometown folks fret over Attalla teen’s centerfold", The Birmingham News, pp. 1. Retrieved on 15 December 2008." is the article that quotes Playboy Playmate Holley Dorrough in stating Rolando Gomez discovered her as a playmate. "Jaime, Kristian (January 13, 2008). "Going digital with Rolando Gomez". La Prensa 20 (25): 8B. Retrieved on 15 December 2008." is an article on Gomez's career and accomplishments as a photographer. On [Lexar] Elite Photographers, Lexar chooses each year 30 photographers that they feel deserve that honor. This is a "non-compensated" honor, there is no requirement for the photographer to promote their products or company. The link to D-Pixx, it was not a cover photo only, it was a 9-page article on Gomez's photography and success plus a 4-page (13-pages total), separate article on his workshops in the Virgin Islands. Again, no compensation or promotion required. The "Rangefinder" (Sept. 06') was a cover story, not just a cover shot. The photo was not shot for Rangefinder, it was used by them to illustrate their featured photographer of the month plus the topic, "Lighting." The links to Photo District News were press releases on his 7-city, 3-country tour in Europe completed in Sept. 2007. The article "War Stories" [7] published in Studio Photography was written by the magazine editor at the time, Alice Miller [8], currently the vice president and board member of the International Photographic Council. On Gomez's selection, it was for the 55th Signal, Combat Camera annual workshop where the top 25 photographers, from all branches, spend a week with noted civilian photographers which that year included James Nachtwey, Mary Lou Foy, Bernie Boston and others. At the end of the week they choose the "Top Five." This is not to be confused with the "Military Photographer of the Year" (Bali ultimate cites in the talk page) competition were portfolios are submitted, via mail and judged (only), a total separate program. Several articles site Gomez's DOD Top Five accomplishment and are sourced including the one written by Miller. Finally, this press release, PhotoImaging & Design Expo 2005 Brings in the Top Guns "[9] lists Gomez in the 3rd paragraph with other Wiki notable photographers. Just FYI, thanks for your fairness. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 06:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please respond to my comment at AfD regarding autobiography of Halmos. Katzmik (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you have have easy access to Halmos' book, could you please see if you can find some material on E.Bishop, A.Robinson, and NSA in general? Katzmik (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've moved the content and the history to the link above...hope that helps. Singularity 02:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed you had made some edits there in the past. If you get a chance, please respond to my query at WPM. Katzmik (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, this is a discussion you would be interested in Talk:Syrian occupation of Lebanon, please read and vote.George Al-Shami (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For all your hard work bringing attention to articles on academics at PROD. Much appreciated! Espresso Addict (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nice to meet you! Espresso Addict (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

IMDB finally accepted the sourced merge of the different Bill Ewing listings in their database that I submitted to them. I have now returned the IMDB external link as it now includes ALL his projects. Thanks for your input at the AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Denbot (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello John, can you please explain what the template

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

means on the SS page? Please reply on the SS discussion page.

What I mean, of course, is its significance, and why you put it there, and what the consequences might be, given the discussion which had gone on beforehand, establishing notability and arriving at an amicable conclusion. AndreaUKA (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Reply on the Sergeant discussion page, John. AndreaUKA (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

thanks again for your comments, what troubles me, (given that i subscribe to the "The advanced human aircraft hypothesis" (Ufology), is that avowed military users are following a similar modus operandi, in this case. (then they call it a personal attack.) this is more of an ad hoc coverup, than a conspiracy.

i suppose i shouldn't wave the red flag of area 58 before them, the problem is, it's in the NYTimes. then the tenditious cutting down 'not authoritative', 'trivial' begins. the longwinded changing of arguments, and not giving an inch, dosn't strike me as good faith either. here we have articles about museums yet to be built, Cold War Museum, civil war forts that no longer exist, Fort Corcoran, but no Area 58. (all in the same neighborhood.) and the problem being, that if i can find it so can any enemy researcher, so it ends up only obscuring the government program from public oversight.

th implication for wiki is that subcultures, with group think, can impose non wiki rules upon specialized parts of wiki, withholding public information. the dissenters are shouted down with specious arguments: All the quotes say is that this facility is "alleged to be" a satellite downlink station. Even if you choose to ignore the blatant weasel words, that's hardly a big deal, and notability isn't inherited from any notable data which goes through the place. The other citations appear to only mention the site in passing while discussing data which has passed through it

i've written worse articles, and will continue. how long will it take before they delete it from my userpage? well i will go back to my other articles, where more polite, rational editing prevails. Dogue (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

given that the fix was in, it dosn't matter if i vote keep or abstain; abstaining can be seen as washing the hands of the outcome. Dogue (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Those look like much more promising and significant sources. I'm not in the policy of overturning AfD's that I've closed; rather, I think more community input can benefit. You could ask for a AfD review at Deletion Review, or you could just go ahead and recreate the article making sure the reliable sources are used (or draft the article in userspace until it is a clearly notable start-class or better, the transfer back. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmund Ward Poor (2nd nomination). I note the confidence with which you state that 100% of such cases have been kept. How do you know this, please? I am always eager to learn good ways of cutting through the confusion and inconsistency often found at AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is something strange about this article. "Alexsandr Dmitrievich" is a masculin name, but the title of the Festschrift mentions "Professora Aleksandra Dmitrievicha Dulichenko", a feminine name. Could there be two different persons involved here or is this something to do with Russian declinations? The authorship of the Festschrift is strange, too, as it is highly unusual that someone edits such a thing for himself. By the way, the Festschrift is present in only a few libraries worldwide (according to WorldCat). "Alexsandra" gets only 12 GHits], "Alexsandr" gets a few more. Both get some more if the middle name is left out, but it never becomes much. As "Aleksander Dulitsenko" (only 6Ghits) he is mentioned on the site of the University of Tartu as Chair of Slavic Philology. All in all, I doubt there is enough notability here. --Crusio (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Thank you for your comments on Business Plot. Two of the editors spearheading the name change have deleted 1,184 and 1400+ well referenced words in the past week. I really appreciate the support. Ikip (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for deprodding this article. I had Googled the web and found nothing, so I thought there would be no RSs. I've never investigated GBooks or GScholar before, but will look into them and avoid inappropriate prodding in the future. One question: Shouldn't I delete the prodwarning from User talk:Ianlucraft? (Watching for your reply.) --Unconventional (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dear John,

Thanks so much for saving my first article from speedy deletion. It was great that you found those two references to show the topic was notable. I've since been adding to the article, especially bibliographical references. I'm trying to learn to use citation templates. At first I started using Cite book, and Cite journal, as you did, but I couldn't find one for edited books of articles, like the festschrift you mentioned. So I think I'll change all the citations over to the Citation template. Thanks again. Tekone Tekone Yoshimori (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

You got to it before I could. I was a bit surprised when that showed up on the prodlist.....74.69.39.11 (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Seems to be hard to find sources directly on him though - everything in the article looks supportable, but would be a lot of work citing everything; could do with knowledgeable input.John Z (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Another nice one on Alexandre Paul. Glad to know there are at least a few people defending prod'd articles.74.69.39.11 (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just got this note on my talk page. I'll look over contribs for anyone who's interested in running for RFA; do you want me to do that? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

My thanks to 74.69.39.11/ Mike. Sure, see what you think.John Z (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Apologies, somehow I missed your reply in my watchlist. I'll do this as soon as I'm finished with the db-spam queue. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Take your time, I'm not in a hurry to go through it.John Z (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm guessing the RfA process (and pre-process) may be pretty grueling (all things being relative, of course). Given that we travel in the same wiki circles, I was impressed with your actions, and as I said in my note to Dan, the stalking I did showed a very level headed editor. Given that, as an IP user, I may lose this current IP next time I turn my computer off, I'll check back in here from time to time. Let me know how this progresses. Mike 74.69.39.11 (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have opened a DRV on the wrangler categories, on which you opined. Occuli (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the summary, I agree completely. Just as long as the closing admin recognises it for the nonsense it is it'll be OK.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

do you happened to know if this was actually published? It's listed for march 2009 and the OUP release their police stuff under the blackstone's name but it's not listed as available. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Seems it was a bent reference and is actually self-published. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have formally submitted your May, 2007 proposal to merge the Legal Adviser of the Department of State and the United States Department of State Office of the Legal Adviser articles. --TommyBoy (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi John Z, I would like to solicit your input regarding the criticism section of Paramahamsa Hariharananda. These criticism may be true or false but, regardless, the sources for the criticism, namely the two books by Satyeswarananda and the website of Kriyananda, are self-published. According to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." If we remove the sources without deleting the entire section, then the article will be criticizing a dead person without basis. Please let me know whether you agree with this deletion or not in my talk page. – Shannon Rose (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi John. Per the stipulations at WP:CANVASSING, I've pinged your talk page to "appropriately canvass" you wrt the deletion discussion currently taking place at "WP:Articles for deletion/Home and family blog." (Note that I've also pinged the talkpages of all of your fellow participants at last years deletion discussion at "WP:Articles for deletion/List of blogs," to ensure that my notifications are to a small number of wiki-contributors that have been neutrally selected.) I hope you'll consider taking part in our discussion. Thanks. ↜Just me, here, now … 07:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was asked to participate in the AfD of "Home and family blog". I looked up the relevant guidelines, and have posted them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home and family blog for your consideration. The Transhumanist 21:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Since you removed the deletion template from this article could you please come and comment on the talk page. Thanks! Thbppt! (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi John, sorry for the long post, just delete this if it gets in your way. Here is some info that might help clarify things. I think the confusion arises because folks incorrectly assume that if they can show Palestine only exercises restricted sovereignty that means no state legally exists. At most it might show that Palestine is either a dependent state or semi-sovereign state. In the case of a military occupation, it is understood that normal sovereignty is reduced to a mere potential. The Palestine National Council declared an independent state, but there have always been examples of nominally sovereign and independent states which were forced to accede to treaties that made them dependencies of their more powerful neighbors. The expired self-governing agreement wasn't susceptible to any other interpretation. Those sort of situations were recognized as an abuse of power by the 1860s, and in the modern era they are governed by Chapter XI of the UN Charter. See sections 8, 9, and 10 on pages 187 and 188 for discussion on mid 19th century norms International Law, By Henry Wager Halleck

When the Palestine Mandate was drafted, most other states were colonies, dependencies, or had only limited sovereignty. For example, the List of sovereign states in 1919 contains quite a few that were actually dependencies. The US Government commissioned reports to keep track of the treaties that imposed restrictions on the sovereignty of other states. see Talk:List of sovereign states in 1919#Types of Restricted Sovereignty and of Colonial Autonomy.

The American Law Encyclopedia Vol 3. entry on Dependent States says that "States can be classified into two general categories: dependent and independent. A dependent state does not exercise the full range of power over external affairs that an independent state possesses under International law." and that "Various terms have been used to describe different types of dependent states, such as condominium, mandate, protectorate, and vassal state. Since 1945 there has been strong international pressure to eliminate forms of dependency associated with colonialism." see Dependent States

The Emirate of Transjordan was recognized as an "independent government" by the British during the Mandate era, but not an "independent state". The British contacted the State Department to see if the US would oppose making it a British protectorate. see the State Department memos. Jacob Robinson attempted to explain the declarative theory of statehood to the Jewish Agency, i.e. the existing dependent state had been divided, and the new dependent states had come into existence when the resolution was adopted on 29 November 1947. Hersh Lauterpacht didn't mention his constitutive theory, but spoke about the irrevocable nature of the adjudicated settlement. The possibility of declaring an independent government instead of a state was discussed, as well as the possibility of having either a dependent or independent state. The explanation about a dependent state seems to have been lost on Moshe Sharrett. The Palestine Yearbook of International Law The United Kingdom had recognized the United Nations Palestine Commission as the successor government of Palestine, and Abba Eban correctly noted that the Charter doesn't question the juridical status of the victim of aggression. see PAL/138, 27 February 1948

On the subject of UN or partial recognition, the US and UK have publicly stated that the UN doesn't determine the status of states. Both have said the request for an advisory opinion on Kosovo's independence from Serbia is a waste of time. The US said "As a practical matter, Kosovo's independence is an irreversible matter. Forty-eight countries have recognized Kosovo as an independent state, including 22 of the 27 members of the European Union." see UN General Assembly to Ask ICJ for Ruling on Kosovo Independence. harlan (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks!--Doron (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Re: [10], where does it say a list of a writer's book don't need to be sourced inline? -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-06-30t11:23z

Reply.

I agree that references, citations, and further reading don't need references (except where maybe the references are themselves questioned, tho that may be explained on the talk page or the article about the source, e.g. major problems with A glimpse of hell being used as a source), but I don't see a list of works by an author as references - it's part of the article proper.

wp:v's sourcing requirements trump the MoS or what's done in most undersourced articles.

Linked ISBNs don't always indicate different writers with the same name write them, depending on depending on what link's chosen at Special:BookSources - I've had to clean up an article where books were written by another author with the same name, and the only way to do that was inline cites clearly disambiguating the authors.

I'll leave the Allen C. Guelzo's publications unsourced, and take it up at wt:v. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-01t10:48z

One of my moderator jobs/ Now where belongs at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues so you can watch page. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

For the welcome back and for your kind words earlier too. It was hard to be away, but the break was much needed, and I have come back with a fresh perspective at least. I hope we will have the chance to work together more closely in the months and years to come. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 18:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not!  :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads-up. No, I wasn't aware. I'll check it out. Geo Swan (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hans von Sponeck, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.brusselstribunal.org/bios/Sponeck.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, John, your note means a lot to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi John,

Your input at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Per_station_television_schedules would be greatly appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, I was just gonna find notable sources; I was busy; I knew there would be plenty on such a huge and well-known entity. Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback about how to deal with what User:Jalapenos do exist has done would be appreciated. He has twice now, redirected State of Palestine to Proposals for a Palestinian state. I do not want to edit-war but I cannot accept that this page be effectively deleted when it is significantly different than it was at the time of deletion debate - whose results were bogus and which took place over two years ago. Thoughts on how to avoid a disaster? Tiamut^talk 21:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have very little time to say much in the next couple days, but it may not be necessary to do anything more. Disaster may not be in the offing, as I think people will respect Avi's recent talk page comments. In any case, if there is an RfC and wider participation, I don't think there is much to fear once outside editors understand the facts and relevant guidelines, the redirect arguments are and always were very weak.John Z (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The link to Amy Knight you give takes us to her position in 2000. Evidence since nails Hiss directly, not from Venona intercepts, but from KGB files, where he is directly mentioned by name. Best Nishidani (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

May be difficult to access the TLS, but it's only just over a month ago, and consists of Haynes and Klehr's reply to Amy Knight's review of their book. They've put the Vassiliev files online, downloadable, in pdf. Secondly, they point out her key defense that the file explicitly identifying Hiss is to be dated Dec 1949, (and hence she argues, just reflecting Moscow officers' summaries of the American press on the HUAC hearings) simply cannot be true. The document signed by Gorsky is dated Dec. 1948. There are also two other agents reports dated to dec.1948, by Fedotov and Kukin which identify Hiss by name as one of 'our former agents'. A third element is a KGB memo identifying the Soviet GRU agent "Leonard" as a senior State Department official recently convicted. The only SD person convicted that year was Hiss, "Leonard" glosses Hiss in earlier documents, and the connection between the two names is not simply an illation from Venona intercepts.

My reading of the era is, for what little it is worth, more or less that of Pynchon, de Lillo, and Doctorow. But when facts upset the applecart, I tend to celebrate them, if only because, if the facts hadn't cropped up unexpectedly on the road not normally taken, I wouldn't have been able, as is my practice, to drink the cider I quickly distill from the apples pilfered from the overturned waggon. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks indeed for the link. In a quick read (I'm catching up on Hannibal Lecter's early years)I note Kisseloff doesn't challenge the authenticity of Vassiliev's documents. In any case, bref, history is still nationalistic, or alliance-focused. Recontextualise this kind of case within the wider panorama of infra-allied spying allows one to see other perspectives. George Marshall records in his memoirs that General Sir John Dill kept him secretly informed of what Dill's boss, Churchill said in private to Roosevelt, a kind of betrayal by Dill of matters Roosevelt never let his own government know about. It would have cost him his job, career and reputation had the Brits found out. Read Skidelsky's bio (3rd vol) of Keynes and one gets a close insight into how much under-the-table subversion of one's allies went on. If the best of friends spy on each other, this focus of ideological treason looks slightly different, or downscaled. It's all over the modern geopolitical landscape even today, even among intimate allies. But I drivel, and must get off wiki and back to the real world (HLecter jungling pt.2). Keep up the lynx-eyed work. Nishidani (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

As I explained in detail the last time that User:Harlan_wilkerson chose to call me a "racist" (the only thing which I object to by the way), I really can't selectively edit someone else's comments for content. That would be highly disingenuous and deceptive on my part (making him appear to say something which he did not say). It is in fact up to User:Harlan_wilkerson to make his own comments conform to relevant policies. AnonMoos (talk) 07:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi John, I'm considering trying to get Exodus from Lydda and Ramla up to FA status, and I'm wondering whether you'd be willing to read it, if you have time.

My tentative plan is to do a rewrite, cut it down to around 80 kbs (I think it is currently around 115), tighten the writing, edit it for flow, make it MoS-compliant, perhaps remove some primary sources, tidy any non-neutral language, and so on.

What I'm wondering is whether, as it stands, the content is ready to be improved in that way, or whether substantive material still needs to be added. My view is that it doesn't, but one editor has said on talk that we need to add the views of Israeli military historians. I would only want to start the FA work if the content is more or less complete, in the sense of covering the key issues and sources.

Would you mind reading it and letting me know if any issue, or any important source, jumps out at you as missing? I realize this is a lot to ask, because it's a long article and not everyone's cup of tea, so if you're too busy, or you just can't face it, please feel free to ignore this request entirely (and I really mean that). Best, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Noticed your work in the last 24 on Allen Weinstein, looked back for 30 days, & see more of your constructive efforts. Thanks, especially re the subscription situation. I'll bet that, like the NYT, they tried the on-line-subscription model but decided it was a bad idea for them. And failed to notify us [wink]! (Actually you've saved me the library work i was planning for tomorrow, and now i have to figure out what to do instead while i'm there. But i should have such a problem more often!) If you're thinking, as i am, about using it to address the issues i raised, i'd be glad to work "on the edges" of the relevant portion of the article rather than undertaking a thoro rewrite of it as quickly as i can assimilate the source material. I'll watch your talk page for a few days, so you can put any response right here.
--Jerzy•t 20:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

• I've made a rather longer response to what you said at the ev & claims section.
  --Jerzy•t 22:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
  

Thanks for the support. i didnt think i was doing anything that wrong, but i want to maintain civility on my part. i will try to add some refs supporting some of his books/articles notability if i can find them. and i will continue to read how the afd goes. i also know that if it gets deleted, i can request help, though im not sure how that works.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Monroe and Isabel article is my first article contribution to wikipedia and I appreciated you editing and helping the post so early on when some others were trying to remove it. Again, thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreselly (talk • contribs) 01:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi John Z!

Because you interacted with User:The Quiet Biographer, I want to inform you about User:WereSpielChequers/Newbie treatment. I apologize for any inconvenience caused by my edits under that name. However, I sincerely believe that looking at the way new users are treated, and where we can improve, will be beneficial to Wikipedia in the long run. The project is always looking to recruit new, dedicated editors, and I think it is very important that new users acting in good faith feels welcomed.

That said, I was very impressed with the way you dealt with the article and its creator. If it wasn't for your intervention, "The Quiet Biographer" may well have departed from the project in disgust.

Again, sorry for the misrepresentation. Regards, decltype (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Monroe and Isabel Smith. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monroe and Isabel Smith. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm actually rather relieved you took the thing off, since it means someone was actually looking out for it. At the timebeing I'm kind of torn about it because it's in a huge vague area of possibly having to end up in an AfD with few people who would be able to comment at length about it. Biggest concern? If you look at the edit history of this article and then go look at the same at every article on the 'See Also' list, you'll see how that frustrating POV pushing concern comes from. Since this is technically a dodge of a block I can't have ignored blindly it, but I was mostly hoping someone would stumble by and notice. I'm left with 0 concerns if the large editor canvassing could be given a glance; just saying that neutrality looks good is more than enough. Sorry to nag you with this, but it's a matter of community service goodwill cleanup work I need to follow through on as a whole. Thanks! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 09:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

You mention on the talk page of this article about it being deleted an salted. Can we make that happen? This thing is an abberation. Vinithehat (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply. That article is godawful.Vinithehat (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Very nice work, thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the rescue! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would like to thank you for your support in the deletion review. Helped me keep my sanity. In particular, your comment on the absurdness in requesting inline citations for unchallenged material made me smile. Thanks. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea how on earth it happened, but you have my apologies for accidentally deleting your response. I was trying to get the vandalism at the bottom of the page and somehow got your response in there too! Frmatt (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

thanks for your help! Pumkinhead001 (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm posting this on your page because you voted "keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Williams (geometer):

Hello John Z,

Instead of being deleted, the article Robert Williams (geometer) has been moved into the article incubator. The incubator is a collaborative environment aimed at helping new articles be brought up to Wikipedia's standards in an environment that is free from the pressures of impending deletion. To continue working on your article, please visit Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Robert Williams (geometer).

If you have any questions or need help, feel free to ask and I will be glad to help. — Sebastian 07:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

You are invited to join the discussion at [AFD] for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, since you have participated in the last AFD.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi JohnZ. I would like to work on two things regarding what has happened to Nableezy. On is to file an appeal of Sandstein's decision which I will begin in my user space shortly. The second, concurrent to this, would be opening a User RfC on Sandstein regading his abuse of his admin powers. I have asked Gatoclass for some advice on how to proceed. I hope he responds soon. When I have drafts up in my user space, I will be contacting you for feedback. I hope you will co-sign both the appeal and the User RfC. Also, check out Nableezy's talk page to see what has happened most recently and why these steps are absolutely necessary. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 19:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

FYI, Nableezy has decided to file an appeal at AE. Tiamut^talk 21:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your note on my talk page. I look forward to reading your contributions to the appeal discussion. I think you have an interesting perspective on what is at stake/at work here that would be deeply beneficial to the project for others to hear. Thanks again John Z. Always a pleasure reading what you have to say. Tiamut^talk 22:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Heyo. This back and forth is getting us nowhere. There are editors such as Mikrobølgeovn and Megaidler who agree with my edit and those such as Sherif, who oppose. Both sides think they're right but one side shouldn't have a monopoly over the other. Therefore, I am willing to compromise. I will leave the infobox as is (Status=ceasefire) per your concerns but make the corrections to the inaccuracies that I noted in the synopsis section. You yourself acknowledged that this section isn't perfect is "imperfect." Is this acceptable? Please leave a message on my talk page with your (hopefully agreeable answer). Warmest regards--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

What's this? Are you really willing to compromise historical facts? This is a neutral encyclopaedia we talk about, and you guys are willing to compromise just to please each other, ignoring historical facts? I hope this never take place. Then Wikipedia loses it's trust totally. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Before reverting Mikrobølgeovn’s recent edit, I hope that I can prevail upon you to listen to reason. As the Insight Team of the London Sunday Times accurately pointed out in their exhaustive book on the Yom Kippur War, “The brute statistics of war indicated an Israeli victory.” In every battlefield category, losses in tanks, aircraft, naval vessels, soldiers and POWs, Arab losses dwarfed Israeli losses, and by large margins. In the north, Israel occupied 500 sq. km of Syrian territory and in the south, Israel’s west bank salient more than made up for territory lost in Sinai. Moreover, the strategic positions favored Israel with the 3rd Army surrounded and IDF troops poised some 50 miles from Cairo. The situation in the north was equally favorable to the Israelis who were within artillery range of Damascus and whose forces now occupied both sides of the Hermon. So when one looks at the picture on a tactical level, one can only come to but one conclusion concerning who the winner is.

Now I understand that on a political level, the situation is a bit murkier with some arguing that Arab military successes of the first 2-3 days allowed Sadat to claim that Arab pride had been restored. However, one can equally argue, as Luttwak and Kumaraswamy do, that it was Israel that emerged with a political victory. This is precisely why the result section is phrased “Israeli military victory” as opposed to just “Israeli victory.” While one can argue "political victory" for either side, one cannot in good faith argue that the war resulted in stalemate. Gawrych, who subscribes to this view, himself acknowledges that most Western analysts considered the war to be an IDF military victory. Perhaps, we can further narrow the scope of the result section by stating “Tactical Israeli victory.” Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Aleksandr Dulichenko. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandr Dulichenko. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

In Israel, customary international law is part and parcel of the common law of the land, and it is enforced by the domestic courts unless it is incompatible with parliamentary legislation. Conventional (treaty) law is not enforceable without enabling legislation. See 'The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement: A Comparative Study', by David Kretzmer [11]

The MFA has a report on the Gaza operation which says the High Court does accept the customary status of the Geneva Convention and the Additional Protocol:

THE OPERATION IN GAZA: FACTUAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS 29 Jul 2009

III. THE APPLICABLE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

31. Some of the rules governing the use of force in armed conflicts are set forth in treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Regulations annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907.(7) Others have gained acceptance by the practice of the international community and become part of customary international law. The Israeli High Court has ruled that these customary international law rules bind Israel under both international law and Israeli law.(8) In particular, Israel’s High Court of Justice has confirmed that in the ongoing armed conflict with Palestinian terrorist organisations, including Hamas, Israel must adhere to the rules and principles in (a) the Fourth Geneva Convention,(9) (b) the Regulations annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention (which reflect customary international law), and (c) the customary international law principles reflected in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions on 1949.(10) Israel is not a party to the Additional Protocol I, but accepts that some of its provisions accurately reflect customary international law.(11) [12] harlan (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010)   Previous issue | Next issue

Content

RE: [13]

Thank you, I just noticed your comment as I was compiling information for the newest arbcom. That was really nice.

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to John Z, for your kind and unexpected comments.Ikip 23:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for locating the obituary and removing my prod from the article! Apparently I searched for "Anant Damodar Raje" and missed the ToI article; would have been a pity if we had lost an article because of that, and shows why multiple eyes help reach a better deletion result. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for commenting on Venezuelanalysis at WP:RSN. I've actually started a new section to summarise and refocus: WP:RSN#Venezuelanalysis Reboot - perhaps you could comment there? (I'm asking everyone who participated in the old WP:TLDR thread.) Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 12:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if you've noticed, but SandyGeorgia keeps insisting that she needs to see the entire paragraph context of a quote you added at Venezuelanalysis.com (cf Talk:Venezuelanalysis.com). I struggle to see the justification, but since you added it I bring it to your attention. Rd232 ^talk 20:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey John Z!

My "lapse" from editing has ended and I'm back at the Yom Kippur War article. It's good to see you back as well. Your input has a touch of neutrality about it. Keep it up! Respectfully, --Sherif9282 (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello John.

I really don't see where the Megaidler-Jiujitsuguy duo is going with the continuous provocations. I've had enough. [14] [15] [16]

Please advise. Thanks. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll try to maintain a cool head. But thank you for the support, I really needed it :-) Sherif9282 (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

An article that you have been involved in editing, Zengzhi Li, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zengzhi Li. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I really appreciated your kind comment here. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

A very lame argument has arisen in the talk page of the article in the Casualties section. Megaidler and Jiujitsuguy are engaging in an edit war with me for all the wrong reasons. Now Jiujitsuguy warns me not to edit war! --Sherif9282 (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Right you are. I'll try to keep a max of three edits within 24 hrs. It's not a problem of a lack or conflict of sources. Simply put, one source that holds much more weight than another by cause of common sense and WP policy, is being blatantly discarded because it doesn't someone's taste. Now he's using warnings of edit-warring and claims of having "consensus" (huh?!) to push his POV. Nableezy does add some balance into this ridiculous argument, but I'm positive there's going to be another revert soon. --Sherif9282 (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, that ended without further incident. I need to ask you something: you said Dupuy and others criticized Herzog's account. What were these criticisms from Dupuy, and who else criticized Herzog?

I'm thinking out loudly here: how about a historiography section at the end of the article, like the one in Operation Pleshet or the 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla. I think it's becoming more frequent in I-P articles, and I think it would a good place to describe the sources used and criticisms of sources and so on. --Sherif9282 (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

John, I've made a suggestion on the last para in the lead, and your comments would be welcome. BTW, you haven't answered my last post. --Sherif9282 (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have replied to one of your comments relating to the structure of Wikipedia's list of wars. You can see it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_wars_1945%E2%80%931989 Please read 114.72.189.94 (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

... ask for your input on this page? It's based on Gawrych and Hammad for now, and I would very much appreciate your contributions, unless you're busy. Feel free to edit the page if you wish. Thanks! --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Spiegelman-illustrated one is the better one (he's quite talented), though I also have the original. It has a cadence similar to Poe's "The Raven", and is ballad-like in its story-telling aspect.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have made new edits on the article and I'm expecting for answers in the talk page. In the talk page, you may watch the sections dealing with the infobox / belligerents, the infobox / result, the casualties and the aid. I hope we will finally reach a consensus in some issues. This message was sent to many editors. Megaidler (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comment. I have read the WP:SPS but I don't agree that the blog is reliable to be used as a source in this particular instance. As you know in BLPs primary sources are not used alone especially when opinions are made, but secondary references would be weighed in more. Also if you go through this blog, it is not reliable but very much biased and should not be used as a source. If the opinion you feel should be included, is that notable then there should be other mention of it picked up by other media. Notability is a criteria or else people could add anything taken from blogs and websites endlessly. Views which are hard to verify/not notable could be WP:UNDUE. Thus until you can find such a secondary source, kindly don't revert. (also note that a retraction was made by him and mentioned in the Daily Telegraph, cited in full). So there is balance. Also it may interest you to know, that the particular link you have been adding is blank in addition to being unreliable and not notable. It would be great if you can limit the discussion to your own talk page. I will reply here if needed. Peaceblissharmony (talk) 09:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The link I have been restoring comes up fine just now for me. The first time I loaded that site, it did take some time.

The comments above about the primary source nature of the blog post, bias, opinion, non-reliability of the blog for other purposes are irrelevant and not backed by policy - WP:SELFPUB Wikipedia:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source, etc. There is no requirement for secondary referencing, especially of one's response to a published possible slander. Notability is not a criteria here. Notability usually refers to article topics, although sometimes used as for sources. But everyone is a notable source on themselves. In essence, anyone's self-published source is a reliable source for their own article, subject to the minor caveats in the policy. In this case, disputation of a reliable source's charge against him is important for neutrality. This is not a hard case, the link, which I believe was added by the admin Slp1 is perfectly acceptable, and I am quite sure this is / will be the consensus view. Such sources are used throughout wikipedia's biographical articles. As I indicated, I know nothing of the subject, but policy and practice is very clear here.

I sincerely hope you rethink the removal - I won't restore it tonight - and perhaps explore wikipedia's byzantine rules a little more, very few editors get them right in the first few months. Regards,John Z (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

But you will restore it tomorrow, right? I don't concur with your usage of policies here and yes notability is usually required in BLPs, unless we are talking basic biographical details. Otherwise articles would be overflowed with various statements, opinions from person in question WP:UNDUE. Referring me to WP:SELFPUB repeatedly won't change the notability criteria. Reliablity is not notability, which is relevant. In BLPs usually only statements or events supported by a secondary reference are used as opposed to primary sources only. Also the balance is there as I see clear mention of the retraction in the last line. In light of your reference to policies, also read WP:AGF about assuming good faith of editors irrespective of what may be occurring in various articles in general. Following editors around can be disruptive behaviour under WP:HOUND. I am withdrawing from this article. I sincerely hope you will consider that. As said earlier, kindly don't write on my talk page anymore. I will answer here if needed. But as you will get your way now, there shouldn't be a need. Regards, Peaceblissharmony (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I sincerely and strongly regret any bad feeling, and I apologize for anything I said or did to cause this. I completely assume good faith on your part. I just inferred that you naturally misunderstood many of our complicated policies. But I restored the passage as there doesn't seem to be any room for policy based dispute. The other policies quoted, especially notability, are simply not relevant to this issue. Basically, if we have an RS calling someone a holocaust denier, for neutrality we must also report his statement that "I never said such a thing", not just a partial retraction that says, "he isn't a holocaust denier any more." I don't think any other experienced editor would disagree.John Z (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply