User talk:MPerel/Archive 2005

Note: This is an archive. Please post new comments at my live talk page User talk:MPerel

Nomination

Thanks for your support on requests for adminship. Happy new year. Tim Ivorson 17:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Request for help in Jew article

I think we are now in circular arguments in talk page of Jew. I will like you to help as a neutral person. As far as I have seen from your talk archive, you won't be regarded as anti-jew. (A label which I am normally given).

I am trying to argue that we should tell in this article that, some people who are considered as Jew by very few. The people who are not accepted as Jew in general are not discussed in this article. I have listed many sources some of which are following

• Anglo-Israelism
• Christian Identity
• Talmidaism
• Nazarene
• Messianic Judaism
• Judaizing teachers
• Jews for Jesus
• Messianic Renewed Judaism
• Lost Ten Tribes
• British-Israel-World Federation
• supporting alternative Jewish claims by citing different sources

After citing all these sources only thing which I want is that, article should mention in some manner that they are excluded from this article.

This includes many famous persons like

• Paul of Tarsus
• Jesus
• Mary, the mother of Jesus

And many others. I am not asking to mention all these in this article. I only want that we should mention that these views are not included in this article.

Thanks

Zain 20:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zain, it isn't that I consider you "anti-Jew" -- you just aren't able to provide convincing evidence (or any external evidence) to the many arguments that have been made against your logic, especially given that (1) the article Jew is about the ethnic group, and not the religion; and (2) there is an article Who is a Jew? that is the appropriate place for such discussion about, well, who is a Jew. MPerel is welcome to take a look at let us know what he thinks. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:01, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Problem is, there is no single opinion that, what this article should be about. Following are the possibilities which might be considered.

1. Religion
   • Then there are others who claim they are also Jew by religion (Gave examples earlier).
2. Descent
   • There are communities who either them self or by others are considered to be of Jewish descent.
   • Individuals who have left Jewish community, in considerable numbers. (Please read Silent Holocaust )
3. A mix of both religion and descent.
   • Then which of the religion claims have to be rejected and which of the descent claims have to be rejected.

I am only saying that this article should tell that it has not discussed people related to some/all of these claims. I hope MPerel will be helpful in this. Zain 11:44, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zain, lets take this back to the talk page. Short answer, though, is that in the first case (religion), your examples did not include claims that these people actually called themselves ethnic Jews - take a look through the Anglo-Israel article and Christian Identity, among others, they actually are AGAINST Jews (plus, the Jew article is not about religion, it is about Jews as an ethnic group). All of the other cases are explicity handled in Who is a Jew?. Anyhow, please take this back to Talk, if you still want to discuss. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:07, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zain and Goodoldpolonius2, Wikipedia is still excruciatingly slow today; I'm having trouble navigating and editing, but I will try to respond a little later over on the Talk:Jew page. --MPerel 18:03, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Can you tell what you mean by 'ethnic'. Do you mean 'race' ? ethnic here appears to be more of a vessel term. Please use some explicit term. And if ethnic is the only term to describe it, then tell that what ethnic means here?

Zain 01:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

....Zain, I have taken the reply back to Talk:Jew. Again, I don't want you to think that because I disagree with you, I am somehow angry or consider you anti-Jewish, I don't. I have questioned whether your admitted biases (and we all have them) about Jewish identity and the Arab-Israeli conflict are driving your argument, but I do not think you are anti-Jewish. I am still waiting to be convinced of your points by outside evidence, and will continue to challenge you until you respond to the points I (and others) have raised. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well frankly initially my concern was only descend. I know the pushtoon claims, first hand. Most important thing is that they don't use this claim to get any advantage. In fact many pukhtoons see this claim true although they feel it is offensive! Other claims of descend came into my mind when I read articles like Silent Holocaust and mentions of willfully/forcefully conversions in various Jewish articles/sources.

After you asked for additional sources which specifically call them self Jews. I did a small research and found there are many others which specifically use the word Jew. I also discovered that in Bible the word 'Jew' is only used to describe the race. Many like 'Paul' also used the same term. Paul continued to call himself a 'Jew'. After seeing these and many other claims, I felt more stronger that article needs more clarification that, which people this article actually discussed.

'who is jew' article discusses various definitions. But this article doesn't makes clear that which one of these choices is chosen here and which of the choices are rejected. Whole sections of history/Statistics/Famous people depend upon the choice of the definition. So it should be made more clear that which choice(s) are employed in this article. Currently it only says that religion is not the only base chosen in this article.

Zain 12:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zain - can you take this back to Talk:Jew, so we don't have to fill up MPerel's page? You will see a response to your previous point there. Also, I would request that you provide some contemporary links to your research about groups that currently consider themselves Jews, but are not addressed in the Who is a Jew? article. You still have yet to provide them, and people like Paul (and other converts) are already covered in the main article.

I will copy your reply and mine to the Talk:Jew page as well.

--Goodoldpolonius2 15:18, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kind of 'Weasel word' effect of term 'ethinic jew' (probably actual source of confusion)

MPerel Well I think I have found source of confusion. It is the term 'ethnic jew'. I have copy pasted extracts from the article Weasel word

Let me put some quotes from the article

..weasel terms are statements that are misleading because they lack the normal substantiations of their truthfulness, as well as the background information against which these statements are made.

..words obscures the fact he has omitted vital information ..

..employs the vocabulary that heightens the expectations of his audience without his being in the position of fulfilling these expectations..

This term doesn't help us to decide whether people like 'paul' , 'jesus', 'marry', 'Albright' can be called 'ethnic jew' or not.

I have purposed that if there is no other choice we should make a separate article of Who is ethnic jew? and link it with the term 'ethnic jew'. This is the core, on which all sections of this article depend. From history/statistics to famous jews. This is the term which decides all contents. So it should be explained. In this article it is difficult to explain the term. So how about a separate article Who is ethnic jew? and link it with the term 'ethnic jew'?

Of course a more explicit term, if possible, will be best solution.

---

Goodoldpolonius2 as you saw from Jayjg comments that your idea for discussing it on that talk page was not a good one. Still I agreed with your idea. I didn't come to MPerel page for debate, but just for an opinion. I don't know why you thought that I should only talk on that page. Any way it is not relevant now. So here is how this situation looks to me now.

1. I am forwarding a useless point.
   • Then you shouldn't discuss it here, because there is no use. So let me talk to MPerel.
2. My point has some weight.
   • Then first convince others on talk page before we make any progress on that page. Till then let me talk to MPerel.

---

Zain 22:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll leave you to talk to MPerel. It might be worth answering some of the comments on the Jew Talk page as well, but I leave that up to you. Until later, --Goodoldpolonius2 03:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Hi Zain,

I understand why you might consider "ethnic Jew" a weasel term, however, I think Cecropia makes a good point on the Talk:Jew page [1] where he says, :I think Zain has identified a defect in the Weasel word article, which apparently does not emphasize the important point that the difference between difficulty of definition (or imprecision) and a "weasel word" is the matter of intent. In the case of this article, we have a problem of exactly describing something for which there isn't a good precise term that everyone could agree on. A weasel word on the other hand, is intended to deceive.

The problem isn't that there is attempt to be misleading, only that it is difficult to define Jew because it is used more broadly than its counterparts, for example, "Muslim" or "Arab". "Jew" is an ethnic term in the sense that it describes a people group, but in a combination of ways, referring to religion, lineage, and culture. Imagine there being only one word to describe Muslims and Arabs, and that there were not distinct Muslim groups different than Arab groups, and that someone converting to Islam became fully Arab, even if he was born Pakistani, just as if his parents were Arab. And imagine that the future children of a Muslim convert are all considered born Arabs. And imagine that anyone who leaves Islam is still considered Arab, because one cannot become an ex-Arab, after one has legally become one.

This is why Jew is a difficult term to define. One can be born a Jew or choose to become a Jew through conversion, and a convert becomes like a born Jew. Matrilineal descendents of any Jew, including converts will always be Jews.

The difficulty of terms is that a Jew is not equivalent to a Muslim or a Christian, because one cannot become an ex-Jew in the same way one can become an ex-Muslim or an ex-Christian. When one converts to Judaism, it is more than a religious conversion, it is joining with a people. All Jews, born or converts are considered by the larger Jewish community to be bound by the Covenant given to Moses, even if they or their descendants with Jewish matrilineage come to reject it.

Anyway, my point is that it's probably not "ethnic Jew" that is the source of the confusion. The source of confusion probably has more to do with the fact that Jew is sort of uniquely defined in comparison with other people groups, and so any terminology (ethnic, nation, etc) will still likely be confusing.

As far as people like 'Paul', 'Jesus', 'Mary', 'Albright', under the definition already in the "Who is a Jew" article, these would be considered Jews because they all have Jewish mothers (except Paul may be questionable because some discrepancies and historical documents indicate that he was not born a Jew despite his claim, and that he converted to Judaism for disingenuous reasons, which would invalidate his conversion...but that's a whole bucket of worms I'll probably regret even bringing up : ) )

Your thoughts on all this? --MPerel 17:15, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

So at least we are now half way

Yes I agree with you. At least we are half way. My suggestion was that there is uniqueness/confusion/disagreement (I won't stress on choice of word, but to the phenomenon ), about the usage of 'jew', so it needs more explanation. Yes 'who is jew?' covers a lot of those claims and in a very good manner. I accept it. Problem is that in this article (or any other article) we are not clarifying, which usage is being used in this article. Is the usage in this article is based on 'halakha' definition. Is the usage in this article based on Israel Law. There are many possibilities some of which are referred in 'who is jew' and some are not (like 1980 US supreme court ruling, and definition used in bible). Problem is we can't use all of these definitions in this article. We have to chose a single one. Or we have to choose a combination of these. May be a totally different definition. But we need some criteria to define which people should be discussed here and which should not.

In the start I had the problem convincing that the term isn't very clear. At least this is now accepted by some (now including goodoldpolonius2) that there is some (potential?)confusion / disagreement / uniqueness. Now what is left that, should there be any attempt to clarify this? And are present attempts make it reasonably clear to readers that, which people should be discussed in this article. If not then what should we do to improve it. May be I should write it in points manner.

1. Is informing that, this article is about Jews, enough for users/editors to decide which people should be discussed in this article?
2. Are the present attempts in this article and 'who is jew' article, enough for users/editors to decide which people should be discussed in this article?
3. If they are not enough, should we do some thing to improve it?
4. If we should do some thing, what can be done?

I believe most difficult part was 'point 1'. Point 2 is also a little tricky. Problem is that people are confusing the difference between discussion on 'who is Jew' and 'requirement of a rough description that what should be discussed in this article'. These two are different things. 'who is jew' article tells only about different opinions. But to write a practical article we must use some 'rough consensus' to decide that what criteria should be used in this article.

(By the way I am also discussing it with goodoldpolonius2. I have convinced him about some points but discussion is currently in progress. I will really like to have a text chat with him on yahoo (if he agrees). I think that will help a lot. He hasn't replied to my last comments for 24 hours now. But he also hasn't contributed yet to any other article in this time, so may be he is away. So if you can contact him please tell him that zain wants to have a Net-chat with you.)

Zain 00:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zain, this sounds encouraging. I'll answer this better in a day or so when I have more time for a thoughtful response. --MPerel 08:03, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Its ok. I am not in a hurry in this issue. Week, month doesn't matter. Zain 20:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Adminship - ABCD

As you may remember, you voted neutral on my nomination for adminship in January. I have recently reapplied. You may wish to vote here. Thanks, ABCD 19:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. – ABCD 15:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Once again, thanks. – ABCD 02:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey Miri, this is just to thank you properly for voting for me in my adminship nomination. I very much appreciate your support! Best, SlimVirgin 00:48, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Mizrahi Jews

I'm having a dispute with an editor regarding article content. I believe he is inserting POV and unattributed claims, he feels differently. If you have a chance could you take a look and see what you think? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous editor at Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism

An anonymous editor at Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism rather busy POVing the article, and because he uses several different IP addresses is able to revert at least a dozen times. Currently he's deleting information from various sources, and trying to segregate statements from one leader into a special section (he previously tried to delete this information). Would you mind providing some assistance in bringing NPOV to the article? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Crypto-Judaism article

I'm having a dispute with someone about the wording of an article. This is more about style than anything else; I find his writing confusing at best, and have run into this problem before. Would you mind commenting? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Immigration form

Yes, spooky. LOL! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:29, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I thought it would be a shame to lose the results of your investigation, so I added your text to Image:HamasLogo.jpg. It would be great to have smth similar for Fatah. Excellent job! ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My adminship: thanks!

Hi MPerel. Thanks very much for your vote for my RfA. I promise to be prudent, wise, sagacious and totally unilateral in all my admin affairs. I should say that I am very pleased at the number of people who supported me – it's very nice to know I'm making a positive impact. Cheers again, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello, MPerel. Thanks for your vote at my adminship nomination. I appreciate the support. Cheers! — Trilobite (Talk) 13:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

Well, I try to. But I don't really see what purpose it can serve to comment on comments like that, except to inflame the original commenter. If you're sure that the comment was just an oversight, now I've removed it, perhaps you will reciprocate by removing yours. Grace Note 01:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciate your decency. Grace Note 02:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

of course, no problem at all. dab (ᛏ) 06:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New Template proposal

Please feel free to join in the mini-fray at Template:Judaism/Template talk:Judaism. Tomer ^TALK 07:58, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Compliment

Thanks for saying that. I started keeping track because of persistent allegations of the exact opposite; usually from bigots and incorrigible POV warriors, but if you throw enough mud some tends to stick. I also started keeping track because history doesn't work well any more, and it's really hard to go back through 17,000 edits anyway; I wish I'd started keeping track earlier. I suspect that list wouldn't satisfy them anyway, but it's possible more open-minded editors will view it more reasonably. Cheers. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I found the Talk: page where this came up, and see now why you mentioned it. Thanks for your defence of me, though I'm not surprised at the response you got. I found the statements of your antagonist rather amusing; "those in glass houses etc." comes to mind. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

And from a feline

If and/or when he passes 500 edits, I will reconsider my opinion of him as a non-contributor! Anyway..., thank you, MPerel, for your vote and very kind words, directed towards myself as well as my owner, in his RfA. Kitty 01:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

p.s. I am sitting on his chair!

KITTY!!! Oh, and thanks, MPerel! El_C 01:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Jesus help?

Care to check out the brewing revert war on Jesus concerning BC/AD -- and the stubborn comments by Arcturus and Rangerdude on Talk:Jesus? I think your input would be valuable. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on my own talk page. To be honest, I don't really care which side of the debate you were/are on — I just thought you should participate in the discussion and that people would benefit from your comments, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Template:Jewish language

You may be interested in the discussion brewing at Template_talk:Jewish_language#Attention-stealing_template. Tomer ^TALK 17:38, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Please check out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

BCE/CE thingo

If they were common parlance, I would not an issue with using them. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I see that you have changed the Bible page. you note: (rv to original) However the original used the normal BC/AD. This novel BCE was introduced to the article by Jayjg. [2] --ClemMcGann 22:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

As you say, ‘BCE’ was elsewhere, having been inserted by an anonymous editor. However I do fell that it was confusing to say ‘rv to original’. Personally, I fail to see advantage in using BCE, only confusion. However, I see from your actions below, that you think otherwise. Wikipedia will be the poorer when you succeed.--ClemMcGann 01:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

my proposal

Hi,

I just announced I am stepping away from the proposal discussion for several days. I know I have polarized the discussion, which I didn't want to do. If you are willing, I hope you will visit the page periodically and do whatever you can or think is appropriate to facilitate discussion between both sides.

Thanks

Steve

Jguk

I am filing an ArbCom complaint. If you think you have cause to get involved/something to add, go here [3] Slrubenstein | Talk 14:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks :-)

I appreciate your support... maybe I'll have another go in a few months :-) Ta bu shi da yu 04:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration matter concerning Jguk

The Arbitration matter concerning Jguk has opened. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk/Evidence. --mav 01:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's one I found from last October: [4] I'm sure if you look through his edit history you'd find hundreds more. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

For anyone who wants to know, I intend to add evidence when I can. At the moment I have to travel and I will likely be offline for at least a week. I may be able to squeeze in some time on Sunday. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

You might want to note his recent edits to the Common Era article as well; he keeps trying to remove a link to a webpage he describes as a "blog" (though it clearly is not, and is a popular site), in spite of a strong consensus in Talk: from months ago that he should not do it. He's also inserting all sorts of POV supporting his view into the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that. See my note to Slrubenstein here, I will be offline this week, but have gathered quite compelling evidence which I intend to present upon my return. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

You should let ArbCom know so they don't rush to making decisions without evidence. You might want to also add evidence a bit at a time, rather than trying to present a huge perfect case all at once. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

MPerel, if you want, I can probably strip the HTML and wikify it fairly easily. Email me the HTML and I'll get it back to you asap (or to steve, if it's OK with you for him to submit it on your behalf). -Tomer ^TALK 18:44, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for supporting my RFA. Guettarda 00:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Theo RFA

Thank you for supporting my candidacy and for making such kind observations about me. I am warmed.—Theo (Talk) 10:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Adminship JoJan

Thanks for your support. BTW I'm happily surprised that I have already 8,000 edits in just 14 months on the en.wikipedia. Since I work also a lot on the Commons and the nl.wikipedia, I wonder what my grand total might be. JoJan 14:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfA for Sn0wflake

Thank you very much for supporting my nomination and for the kind comments. --Sn0wflake 03:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for your support for my adminship. Reasonably yours, -Willmcw 09:38, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration case - final decision

A decision has been reached in the arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk. All involved users are warned strongly to abide by our policies. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 30 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)

Image copyright

Thank you for uploading Image:Peacock.jpg and for stating the source. However, its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. If it is open content or public domain, please give proof of this on the image page. If the image is fair use, please provide a rationale. Thank you. --Dmcdevit July 6, 2005 23:51 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting --~~~~ at the end.

Start a new talk topic.

Archive 2004 Archive 2005

Copyediting in Muhammad article

"Had only the one wife" is actually a perfectly good construction -- but it's not common nowadays, so I can see why you felt it should be edited out. I proofread for Distributed Proofreaders, and do many 18th and 19th century works, so my language is sometimes archaic, without my realizing it. Zora 04:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

new vfd

The prior VFD that you voted at ended with no consensus, a new VFD has been opened at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Historical persecution by Muslims. ~~~~ 18:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, then, I suppose it's only appropriate to reopen the VfD on the Jews wiki. It was also no consensus, and quite close to a delete. HKT ^talk 19:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

List of political epithets

Hey, MPerel, you seem to have a way of resolving edit conflicts. I'm having a disagreement with another editor over at List of political epithets. I contend that his claims are incorrect and/or unsourced, and that when they are sourced, the sources are from one-man websites, or do not support the claim, or are from the people to whom the epithet is allegedly applied (and therefore not neutral on its meaning). I'd like to get some encyclopedic examples of people actually using the epithet in the way claimed, but so far have been unable to. Could you take a look? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's happening again. I think it has gotten to disruptive behaviour and WP:POINT at List of political epithets now. In my view, User:Liftarn has been removing material and asking for citations for material which has already been cited, and has been insisting on citations exclusively for, and inserting NPOV notices in, Jewish-related epithets, when no citations have been provided for any of the other epithets on the page, and when he has raised no specific objections in Talk:. Could you possibly take a look? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

RFA - Thanks!

Thanks for your support for my RFA. It is appreciated. --Briangotts (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I will do my best to serve the Wikipedia community as an administrator. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

The mop is mine!

Thank you for voting to support my RFA. I've been promoted, and I promise to wield the mop with good faith, patience, and fairness... except when I'm exterminating vandals with the M-16 recoilless nuclear Gatling mop. --malathion ^talk 08:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

On a similar note, I'll just briefly say thanks very much for the support on my adminship nomination, I'm greatly appreciative. Please let me know if I'm ever misbehaving. Cheers and happy editing, Slac speak up! 22:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Func's RfA :)

MPerel, thank you for your supporting vote in my adminship, it was very much appreciated! :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e,  ) 18:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for supporting my nomination. AlistairMcMillan 09:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Israeli West Bank barrier

If possible, would you mind taking a look at my current disagreement with AladdinSE there? Thx. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Jguk for admin?

You may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/jguk CDThieme 20:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for supporting my RfA. I'll work hard to try to live up to the confidence you're showing in me. Nandesuka 01:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

ADL

Hi MPerel, consider watching [5] ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Disputes and methods

Mperel, this is the first time I write something in response to you. One of the reasons that this hasn't happened earlier is that I sense that you don't really know why you argue for or against something - if you really agree with SlimVirgin (for example) and understand what her proposals entails or if you just feel that she is a nice person and that it's nice to have friends here on Wikipedia.

You say that the "Middle East conflict" is "complex" - I honestly do not know how to reply to that. If I argue that since Knesset passed two laws, the Civil Wrongs/Civil Torts (Liability of the State) Law and the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (which both are admittedly discriminatory against Palestinians) [6], it is wrong to state in the Israel article that Palestinians enjoy equal political rights. Is that argument disruptive to the purpose of Wikipedia? Was that why editors opposed that argument?

You say it would be presumptuous for you to express strong opinions about the personal choices of people living in that region. What can I reply to that? Yes, I agree - you shouldn't judge a man until you have walked a couple of years in his shoes. Naivety is nice, but certain experiences washes that naivety away (and one starts to judge oneself). You seem to miss something here - I'm not arguing that the individual people who edit Wikipedia should conform to my opinions; I'm arguing that the article(s) shouldn't conform to a view held by less than a half percent of the world's population, a view held by less than 40% of Jewish people, and less than one tenth of a percentage of Arabs. And I can Cite Sources for every edit I've made.

Let's just say that there are some bad people out there; neonazis, Stormfronters, Al-Qaeda sympathizers, KKK, Kahane supporters, and so forth. Sure, if I had any power around here I wouldn't mind having those people cleansed from Wikipedia. An effective hate speech policy or something. I hope you're not under the impression that those groups aren't represented here on Wikipedia, and that all editors are doing this as a hobby.

I must also say that I didn't appreciate this lie about me [7].

Ok, I will from now on refrain from spreading false and/or true assumptions about what I think you think, and I hope you will do the same. --saxet 04:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? You're preaching your interpretations of Wikipedia policy, yet you simultaneously violate the essence of your gospels.

I have respect for Slim Virgin (the "good editor" that you in the spirit of "neutrality" pointed out that I had "maligned" with my "misinformed statements"), because although we might collide together when arguing a proposed edit, or an edit made, she knows that the quarrel over a sentence like "Palestinians enjoy equal political rights." never have and never will have anything to do with the usage of the word "enjoy".

I will not hold a grudge either, believe it or not, but I haven't been personally offended by anyone here. The world is far more complex than most people realize. Anyways, thanks for the welcome. --saxet 14:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

?

Why are you blind reverting Moroccan Wall? Marsden 19:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry; was an anonymous editor who reverted. But did you look to the site I gave in answer to your question? Algeria really does support a negotiated settlement. Marsden 19:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't an anonymous editor, I was accidentally logged out. Wikipedia keeps logging me out. Anyway, you removed sourced information I put in. I did read the site you gave, but it basically said that there was surprise that Algeria supported one of the proposals, but that it was only because they knew the other side wouldn't go along with it and that it was merely a strategic move. Anyway simply stating that Algeria supports a negotiated settelement seems to misrepresent what the source you gave really says about it. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The article reads, "repeatedly proposed negotiated solutions." I could see taking "repeatedly" out, but I think it is pretty clear that Algeria, the OAU, and the UN all support Western Saharan independence, and it is Morocco that is making a land grab, including creating a refugee problem. Marsden 20:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok Marsden, change it to what you think best for now, I'll be offline for the remainder of the week probably, and will take a closer look when I get back. We can battle it out (cordially hopefully) then. My only concern is to make sure all perspectives of what is happening there is presented accurately. Have a good week. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Israeli West Bank barrier

I noticed your comment about the Israeli West Bank barrier on the Talk:Territories under Israeli control page regarding the water issue being resolved on the barrier page. I just wanted to point out that far from it, I have a dispute going on with another editor who has insisted on using out-of-context phrases in otherwise very critical UN reports to try to soften the image of a barrier in a manner I consider very POV (i.e. he doesn't let me balance it out with actual quotations from the rest of the reports). As far as the water issue goes, yesterday he inserted this phrase "all water rights in the area are covered by exiting agreements [26] and are not affected by the barrier", and linked it to this, which as far as I can tell is a hypothetical "suggestion" of an agreement offered by a think tank, since there are no "existing agreements" in effect; water is a final status issue. A comparison of my last edit with this persons' latest edit will hopefully clarify my complaints, but I just wanted to let you know after reading your comment that all is not well over there. I am waiting for him to finish his edits before I clean up after him, because he is refusing to cooperate after I suggested multiple times at Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier to help him. Ramallite ^(talk) 00:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I am also hoping to do a significant (though not major) cleanup, such as placing "opinions" where they belong and "effects" where they belong. These include NPOVing (and putting in context) Zeq's claims (without the ping-ponging which, notwithstanding the material itself, is un-encyclopedic) but also updating information (such as statistics on Israeli casualties having significantly decreased, Israeli and Palestinian reports on benefits / harm of the barrier to their respective populations, etc). If I get to it in time this weekend, please take a look and comment. Thanks Ramallite ^(talk) 01:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I accept them all except for the one about "quotes out of context"

I am using UN sources mostly. When the UN reports include a paragraph that include something that can be interpreted as "pro-israel" it is only because such fact is so clear that EVEN the UN can not ignore it.

The fact that many UN reports include material that can be interpreted as "anti-Israel" should not be a surprize. The UN is not a balanced body.

Usually there are different levels of truth in UN reports:

OCHA is usually very accurate. (I do a lot of work with them so I know it fits what on the ground) Mistakes in their reports are usually fixed in the next reports.

UNRWA and mostly the Ziegler and Dugard report (commissioner for human rights) are based only on what the Palestinian side is saying.

I would suggest that you look at the Israeli court decision (section 67 d) and see some examples (really few out of hundreds of cases) where the court looked at data provided by the Palestinians and examined it to find the facts.

Over all the Israeli court is the only one that looked at the route and the barrier in balanced way and examined the facts. It was not afraid of ruling against the Israeli government many times when it found that the rights of the Palestinians have been violated.

As the article now it is mostly describing the Palestinian side ina much stronger lang and emphasise. It is non neutral. Zeq 06:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your vote in my RfA. I'll do my best to live up to the wiki standards and be a good admin!

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Jguk 2 Arbitration request

Since you were involved / gave evidence in the first arbitration case involving User:Jguk and date notation, I thought you would be interested in a new arbitration request that has been lodged, again regarding User:Jguk and date notation. Please see WP:RFAr#jguk 2 if you would like to comment. Sortan 19:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcomes

Ugh, somehow we both ended up welcoming User:Kmarinas86... I removed mine, since I think you must have added yours a microsecond before or such.  :)

Anyway, you might want to use {{subst:welcome}} instead of just {{welcome}}, as it reduces the load on the servers not having almost everyone's talk page include the template. Just an idea, Bushytails 21:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC).

Thank you very much

Thank you for your support Mperel and kind comment on my behalf (despite the controversy currently taking place). I really hope to work with you in the future. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions for articles on Jews

As there is a great deal of inconsistency in the naming of articles about Jews, I have proposed that they be made consistent. I'd appreciate it if you could commment on this here: Template_talk:Jew#Name_of_articles_on_Jews. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg

MPerel, this is the message I've been leaving at the talk pages of other editors who participated in the Israeli-occupied territories article:

Jayjg has been belligerantly restoring a statement on the Golan Heights having Israel's only ski resort at the Israeli-occupied territories article. You are aware of the fuss he made about how references to anything as trivial as water resources don't belong in that article. My relationship with Jay is such that there is no point in my trying to discuss anything with him, so would you leave him a message at his talk page requesting that he refrain from putting information he apparently considers "crap" back into the article? If he continues to misbehave, your action would complete a step in my formal complaint against him. Marsden 14:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments re: truce between us, but on this matter I think Jay is just trying to make a joke of an article that he has failed to control.

Marsden 14:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

zionist terrorism

Your point about collaborators is a good one. I'd not thought of that before in those terms. Thanks. Unbehagen 22:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads-up on the Western Sahara infobox vote. The voting page is a real mess, and I'm afraid the results may not accurately represent the conflict. --Viriditas | Talk 12:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. Left my vote and comments there. Thanks. Marsden 17:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ramallite RfA

I don't think I should vote on this one. On the one hand, his edits (except in the West Bank Barrier article) seem to follow the NPOV policy well, and he seems like a good person. However, the accusations on his user page are quite unnerving (and highly POV), which makes it hard to believe he's truly capable of shedding all POV. I'd vote Neutral, but that doesn't help anyone.

This is also the reason I avoid the Arab-Israeli conflict articles (except for copyedits). I actually know quite a bit about the conflict, but try to keep away from articles where practically anything can be considered POV.

-- Ynhockey || Talk 10:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, I voted for. Reviewed more edits and read comments and such. -- Ynhockey || Talk 06:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

One of the reasons I'm hesitant to get into Israeli-Arab relations articles is the amount of POV and inaccuracy accusations, as I said before. But a notable recent example is the edit war currently going on in Israeli Arab, which I just quit. It's too stressful and does no good, and Zeq will revert my edits no matter what, while not actually reading the talk page for instance. I can only hope this is not the case for all Arab-Israeli-conflict-related articles. -- Ynhockey || Talk 17:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't repeat a past mistake

At Anti-Semitism, Vizcarra is trying to improve the article -- it is simply necessary to know the context of John 8:44-47 in order to understand why the verses are considered antisemitic. Jayjg has been reverting him stupidly, but there is little to be done about that other than not following his lead. You made a series of blind reverts on me at Moroccan Wall, which I hope you ealize now was a very counter-productive thing to do. Please don't do the same thing with Vizcarra; it's no less counter-productive. Marsden 22:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay -- you've convinced me! ;) Marsden 16:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks from Pamri

Hi, Thanks a ton for voting at my RFA. I am now a wikipedia administrator and I hope I can keep your trust. Thanks again. --Pamri ^{• Talk • Reply} 03:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

PRueda29 RFA

Just wanted to thank you for your support of my RFA! I really appreciate it. PRueda29|Ptalk29 14:19, 07 November 2005 (UTC)

Johann Wolfgang's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA.If my RfA passes I will use my new abilities with the common interest in mind. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ] 16:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Euros

what in the world is up with the euros?!?! i mean it is 25% more expensive to by a big mac but intrest rates are @ 2% or close to it. Does anyone know where i can go to see how much the dollar is compared to the euro?

mattpal 03:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The dollar is worth 54.2 Syrian Pounds, whereas the Euro is worth 64.5. Hope that helps. Palmiro | Talk 13:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very much for supporting my rather contentious request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to do a little dance here *DANCES*. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future, and thanks once again!  ALKIVAR™ 07:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

FireFox RFA

MPerel/Archive 2005

---

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (96/2/0), so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any queries about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Again, thanks!

FireFox 18:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much

Hi - I wanted to thank you so much for your support and your standing up to some of the opposition on my behalf. It means a lot and I greatly appreciate it! I guess I have a lot to live up to now! Thanks! Ramallite ^(talk) 03:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Very much for your kind support of my adminship. I'll do my best to live up to your and my other supporters' expectations. If you have any comments or concerns on my actions as an administrator, please let me know. Thank you! — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 14:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Psy guy's RfA

Thanks for supporting my RfA. It recently closed with final tally of 51/1/2. I sincerely appreciate it and I hope I can live up to your expectations. I will try my best to be a good administrator. If you ever need anything, just let me know. Thanks! -- Psy guy (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup

Thanks, MPerel, for your vote of support on my nomination to become an administrator. I passed, and my floor rag has since been bestowed upon me. Please let me know if you need me to help with anything in particular! —BrianSmithson 16:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Indian Evangelization

I just added it for you but got an edit conflict, after which I saw it was there, so either I did it and the server for some reason told me I was in conflict, or you did. Either way, it's there now. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory redux

"This is the song that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends..." See [8]. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Self-hating Jew

I think some of the current text of this article may have been stolen from the (copyrighted?) Ku Klux Klan encyclopedia entry for "nigger lover." Have a look. 69.138.215.194 16:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Halibutt

Since you have supported me during my RfA, I wonder if you could review and comment on the RfA for Halibutt, the first person I have nominated myself. There seem to be a heated debate and votes of experienced, unbiased editors would be appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. WikiThanks.

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to drop by and thank you for taking the time to comment on my RfA. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate you reconsidering. I also certainly appreciate everyone's comments, even if they are opposing my request -- without critism, I wouldn't know what needed improvements. Thanks again. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 18:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the congrats! .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 18:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Apartheid outside South Africa

MPerel, if you have a moment would you mind taking a look at the latest edits to the Apartheid outside South Africa article? An editor who seems entirely unaware of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:CITE is replacing cited fact with some POV essay. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Please stop this vandalist user: 80.111.190.220

West Azerbaijan, Piranshahr.

Thanks you. Diyako 17:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks

[9]

Do you think your commentary/question at the above link was appropriate?

Marsden 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

So you think that sometimes personal attacks are appropriate? Marsden 14:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, the pot calls the kettle black. Tomer^TALK 22:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

BD2412's RFA

Thanks, MPerel, for your kind words in support of my RfA - I was truly touched by the confidence my fellow editors have shown in me, and will do my best as an admin to help make the dream of Wikipedia into a reality! BD2412 T 07:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ann's RfA

Hi, MPerel! I want to thank you for voting to support me in my RfA, and for your kind words. I know I'm very late thanking you, but I've been a bit caught up with college work. I hope I'll live up to the expectations of those who voted for me. Thanks again. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 18:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you (re: my RfA)

Hey MPerel/Archive 2005! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was (57/4/3), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, have a question, or just want to chat (or if I get out of line!), please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D

Tomer^talk

Thanks!

Thanks for the nice words. Wikipedia is a great resource, but it's people like you that make it a pleasure to be here! -- Cecropia 16:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Hey MPerel! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was an unanimous (45/0/0), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, or have a question, please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

I would like to wish you and your family a Happy Hanukkah and a Merry Christmas, and all the best for the New Year. Guettarda 17:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Miri! Thank you for your kind support on my RfA. -- Szvest 17:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}